Discussion:
Date limit set on first Americans
(too old to reply)
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-22 14:09:15 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm


Date limit set on first Americans

By Paul Rincon

BBC Science

A new genetic study deals a blow to claims that humans reached America
at least 30,000 years ago - around the same time that people were
colonising Europe.

The subject of when humans first arrived in America is hotly contested
by academics.

On one side of the argument are researchers who claim America was
first populated around 13,000 years ago, toward the end of the last
Ice Age. On the other are those who propose a much earlier date for
colonisation of the continent - possibly around 30,000-40,000 years
ago.

The authors of the latest study reject the latter theory, proposing
that humans entered America no earlier than 18,000 years ago.

They looked at mutations on the form of the human Y chromosome known
as haplotype 10.

This is one of only two haplotypes carried by Native American men and
is thought to have reached the continent first. Haplotype 10 is also
found in Asia, confirming that the earliest Americans came from there.

The scientists knew that determining when mutations occurred on
haplotype 10 might reveal a date for the first entry of people into
America.

Native Americans carry a mutation called M3 on haplotype 10 which is
not found in Asia. This suggests it appeared after people settled in
America, making it useless for assigning a date to the first
migrations.

But a mutation known as M242 looked more promising. M242 is found in
Asia and America, suggesting that it appeared before the first
Americans split from their Asian kin.

Knowing the rate at which DNA on the Y chromosome mutates - errors
occur - and the time taken for a single male generation, the
scientists were able to calculate when M242 originated. They arrived
at a maximum date of 18,000 years ago for its appearance.

This means the first Americans were still living in Asia when M242
appeared and could only have begun their migration eastwards after
this date.

"I would say that they entered [America] within the last 15,000
years," said Dr Spencer Wells, a geneticist and author who contributed
to the latest study.

In 1997, a US-Chilean team uncovered apparent evidence of human
occupation in 33,000-year-old sediment layers at Monte Verde in Chile.

They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.

The debate over the biological origins of the first Americans has
wide-ranging political and racial implications.

In the US, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Nagpra) has resulted in the handover of many scientific collections
to claimants.

Some archaeologists argue that the remains of early Americans are
sufficiently different from their descendents to be exempt from
Nagpra.

For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.

Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.

"[Dolichocephaly] is a general feature of very early skulls," Dr Wells
told BBC News Online.

He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000
years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could
have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day
Native Americans.

But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.

"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."


http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-22 14:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
Post by Diarmid Logan
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
Native americans did not have a common origins in south
central asia. They have many points of origin from
melanesians that came up through Japan in the south to
diplaced WEA/ME that came up from the south west to siberia.
To mongols that came from siberia proper . . . . .
Post by Diarmid Logan
But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.
"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."
Then he should make a trip to Japan.
Gisele Horvat
2003-07-22 19:19:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:56:36 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
Post by Diarmid Logan
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Here we go again. What is not made clear in this article is that the
majority of the Native American Y chromsomes are phylogenetically
closer to those of Europeans than to Asians. Quoting Lell et al.
(2002):

"The major Native American founding lineage, haplogroup M3, accounted
for 66% of male Y chromosomes and was defined by the biallelic markers
M89, M9, M45, and M3. ...The second major group of Native American Y
chromosomes, haplogroup M45, accounted for about one-quarter of male
lineages."

We're already up to about 91%...

"Among the remaining 5% of Native American Y chromosomes is haplogroup
RPS4Y-T, found in North America."

RPS4Y-T is the 'Asian' haplotype.

By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested? That the
same haplotypes, which currently appear to be quite rare in Eastern
Asia, were introduced twice - once along with traits similar to those
of Europeans to account for the appearance of the Kennewick Man and
once with traits similar to those of Asians? This is not what Wells
suggested, though:

"He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000
years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could
have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day
Native Americans."

RPS4Y is haplotype 5.

If mtDNAs are maternally inherited and Y chromosomes - paternally
inherited, it should be possible to superimpose one phylogenetic chart
upon the other. Using the well-sampled Europeans as a reference
point:

Y chromosome M89 M9 M45 - precedes the majority of the European
haplotypes as do mtDNA sequences which have 12705T and 16223T. The
predominant Native American haplogroup (A) fits in this category. In
the New World, Y chromosome mutation M3 is thought to have occurred on
this M45 haplotype and been carried back to Asia. This agrees well
with the mtDNA haplogroup A sequences which could have been carried at
the same time.

The Asian/Native American mtDNA haplogroup which is roughly parallel,
phylogenetically, to the majority of the haplogroups of Europe is 'B'.
This could correspond with the Y chromsome haplotypes which have
variants M89 M9 M45 M173 since this haplotype was considered to be a
Native American founding haplotype by Lell and it is found at
relatively high frequency in Polynesia. In Europe, Polynesia and the
New World, at least, Y chromosome M89 M9 M45 M173 could correspond
with mtDNA haplogroups which have 12705C & 16223C and which are called
haplogroup cluster R.

Y chromsome RPS4Y-T could correspond with the mtDNA macro-haplogroup M
sequences in the Americas (haplogroups C & D).

In summary, Native American mtDNA sequences can be separated into 3
groups: 1) the ones which preceded the majority of the European,
phylogenetically, 2) the ones which are considered to be roughly
parallel and 3) the ones closer to those of Asians. If you divide the
relevant Y chromosome haplotypes into the same three groups,
correlations similar to the ones I have described above could be
found. But, *I* shouldn't have to be doing this, researchers in the
field should be and I should be quoting them.

I really just wanted to point out, though, how the low frequency of
the 'Asian' y haplotype is inconsistent with Wells explanation for the
physical description of Native Americans he provided.

Gisele
MIB529
2003-07-23 20:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
Orientals. So I give them the following Clue cards:

Clue #1: Most Indians ARE dolichocephalic. Only a few in Central
America are brachycephalic.
Clue #2: The cephalic index was discredited a century ago. It's as
useful as phrenology.
Duncan Craig
2003-07-24 02:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.

Duncan
Post by MIB529
Clue #1: Most Indians ARE dolichocephalic. Only a few in Central
America are brachycephalic.
Clue #2: The cephalic index was discredited a century ago. It's as
useful as phrenology.
MIB529
2003-07-24 06:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.

In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Tedd
2003-07-24 06:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of Racial Scientism debates of the 19th
century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century, and then carried through by
british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century, long before threads like this. lets keep
it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what lead to the impressions of derogatory
comments (and flaming).

dig deeper,

tedd.
MIB529
2003-07-25 03:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tedd
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of Racial Scientism debates of the 19th
century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century,
Are you sure that's restricted to the 18th and 19th centuries? Why,
just three years ago, one of the Kennewick man plaintiffs (C Loring
Brace) was claiming Indians were Neanderthals, while another (David
Meltzer) was just happy with saying inbreeding lead to what he viewed
as inferiority.
Post by Tedd
and then carried through by
british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century, long before threads like this.
I said "things like this thread", not "threads like this". The idea of
pre-Indian Caucasians is clearly one of those things. Notice how the
theory was posted on sites like Stormfront long before Kennewick man
was uncovered. And notice how, on the flip side of the coin,
Afrocentrics like John Henrik Clarke were claiming pre-Indian Negroids
in the 30s.
Post by Tedd
lets keep
it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what lead to the impressions of derogatory
comments (and flaming).
MIB529
2003-07-25 13:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.
I've followed MIB's posts on the subject of anthropology (as well as a
number of other topics) over the years. I do not always agree with
him. In some cases I strongly agree with him, and in others I
strongly disagree with him. MIB is more knowledgable on the subject
of Anthropology than I am, but that is not the point.
The point is, MIB is a Native American who is well aware of the
reputation anthropologists have in the Native community. If he says
Anthropology has a reputation for racism, it would be foolish to
ignore him out of hand.
Besides the obvious reasons, relics from the 19th century, the problem
is that 20th-century anthropologists would date Indians' arrival like
this: A Chukchi crossed the Bering Strait in a kayak yesterday. He
brought us all with him. (That's essentially what this genetic clock
is, unless they want to argue that Indians are a separate species.
After all, if that Chukchi were to have sons by Indians here, and they
in turn were to marry other Indians, and so on, then the genetic
clock's a cuckoo clock.)

And besides which, as long as I assume the Bering Strait theory's
true, I honestly can see racial differences in intelligence. It's too
bad that, under the Bering Strait model, my own's at the bottom,
somewhere among the invertebrates, due to the genetic drift model that
nothing with a brain goes into a colder environment to escape the
cold. And not the higher invertebrates either; I'm talking the ones
that don't even have a basal ganglia. THAT'S how I see the Bering
Strait theory.
You could dismiss MIB as just a crazy injun, or YOU could dig a little
deeper. You could find out whether or not anthropology has such a
reputation, and you could find out why. You could try reading books
written by actual Native Americans (yes, some of us can write!). For
example, Vine DeLoria has a hilarious description of anthropologists
in one of his books. It's been over a decade since I read it, so I
forget which one. I think it was _Custer Died for Your Sins_ or
something like that. Or, you could try talking to some real live
injuns yourself. I know there are plenty around you neck of the
woods. I've talked to some not far from where you live who could tell
you what the general reputation of anthropologists is, and could also
tell you the names of anthropologists who respect, and are respected
by, the local Native community.
Speaking of Vine, I should point out to posters here that he doesn't
believe everything he says in Red Earth, White Lies. In fact, most of
the pseudoscience, he views as equally valid as the Bering Strait
theory. (If you know the theme of REWL, you know the validity he
assigns to the Bering Strait theory.)
Just putting my two cents in, I've known some very highly educated
Indians who cannot stand anthropologists.
I could also give you examples past the year 1900 of racism by
anthropologists. One of my favorites is the antrhopologist who
decided one of my ancestors was a mythical figure, even though she was
a quite well known historical person. Little things like that tend to
piss one off after a while.
My favorite was Hooten's claim of "pseudo-Australoids",
"pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced Europeans" in
Pecos Pueblo, from pre-Columbian times to even after Spanish contact,
which

Another one: Just three years ago, C Loring Brace claimed Indians were
descended from Neanderthals. I have him on record saying race has no
biological meaning, so how are we to take being considered a separate
species: That everyone's equal, except Indians, who are a separate
species altogether?

Trust me: You're not doing antiracism any favor by minimizing the
date, either. North Koreans and Mongolians deal a blow to The Bell
Curve just as effective as any Indian ever could, and you're more
implying Indian inferiority by using us as ammo against it.
Okay, let's try a little thought experiment. Anthropology is, or at
least aspires to be, a science. (Sorry, but a physical scientist like
myself can't help but find a few flaws in the rigor of Anthropology.)
All fields of science are the sum of human *interpretations* of
empirical data. Humans are flawed, therefore interpretations are
flawed. Spmetimes the data are flawed. Anthropology is a science (so
to speak) which is very sensitive to any ethnic biases. (Being that
the study of humans is especially sensitive to any biases --positive
or negative-- by the humans interpreting the data.)
(1) There are no racist anthropologists
or
(2) The field of Anthropology is necessarily tainted by the racism,
conscious or otherwise, of anthropologists.
The first possibility requires perfection in a large group of humans,
so it can safely be ruled out.
That leaves one, and ONLY one, logical possiblity. The field of
Anthropology is tainted by racism.
I'm not talking about the 18th or 19th century, I'm talking about the
21st century. The bad reputation of Anthropology in the 21st century
Native American community is due to recent and current
anthropologists.
As I've said, I don't agree with MIB all the time. In this case he's
right on target. It would take a little bit of digging to find out
why he hit the bullseye here, but I'll give you a two word clue to
help start your search: Kenniwick Man.
I described the basic failure of Kennewick man. In fact, all these
"caucasoid" skeletons seem to invariably look like so many of my
relatives.
Tedd
2003-07-25 15:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tedd
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of Racial Scientism
debates of the 19th
Post by Tedd
century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century, and then
carried through by
Post by Tedd
british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century, long before
threads like this. lets keep
Post by Tedd
it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what lead to the
impressions of derogatory
Post by Tedd
comments (and flaming).
dig deeper,
tedd.
Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.
yup, dig deeper. personal biases or points of view dont equal reality, only an
interpretation of reality. there are no absolutes, there is no uniformity, to
claim so is to lock yourself to your own biased interpretations.

i'm not insulting MIB, (that would make me a fool), read the statement again,
his comment "...things like this thread..." was a shallow, surface statement
when the roots go back far beyond "this thread" (as i'm sure he'd agree). do i
agree with him, of course i do, anthropology was based on "racism" in time and
place and to a degree still is in some circles (otherwise we wouldnt be having
this conversation).

yes i have read DeLoria, and Vizenor, Silko, Welch, Erdrich, and found them to
be just as guilty of what you are claiming anthropologists to be. and if i
assumed that their points of view spoke for the entirety of the population i'd
be just as guilty as those who claim all anthropologists are racist. there are
anthropologists that are just as controversial within the discipline as Erdrich
is within the native american population.

and for what it's worth; there is more than one theological orientation in
anthropology (not to mention approaches), dont lump us all into the same mold.
that'd be like me insulting you by saying Cherokee and Inuit are one and the
same because they're both indians. (that was said in jest.) ;)

tedd.
thomas
2003-07-26 04:05:30 UTC
Permalink
But many anthropologists DO insist on comparing Indian remains to
Orientals and deciding if you can't find enough similarities, it ain't
Indian, regardless of how much it looks like Indians. From this
apparent difference, they spin wild theories about how whites were
here before Indians and how Indians wiped said whites out.
That is one of the many wild theories advanced by Vine Deloria
in his book "Red Earth, White Lies". Vine is usually advertised
as the foremost critic of anthropology.
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-26 04:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
But many anthropologists DO insist on comparing Indian remains to
Orientals and deciding if you can't find enough similarities, it ain't
Indian, regardless of how much it looks like Indians. From this
apparent difference, they spin wild theories about how whites were
here before Indians and how Indians wiped said whites out.
That is one of the many wild theories advanced by Vine Deloria
in his book "Red Earth, White Lies". Vine is usually advertised
as the foremost critic of anthropology.
Once again we see the race card being pulled. I don't know
if there is any direct contribution by WEA or Africans into
the pre-columbian New world, when I see evidence that is
convincing I will report it. I see lots of genetic evidence
that links Native Americans to Asia. The base problem that
Native Americans, Australos, Europeans(nationalist), Hindus,
Creationist and all what nots of tribal beleifs have to deal
with is the same. About the only people on the earth that I
know might be able to claim local origin are the biaka
pygmies. Everyone else had ancestors that migrated from
elsewhere. Thus we have a situation its not just Native
Americans that have a problem, everyone who subscribes to a
tribal belief of local origin has a problem, a conflict.
Certainly a few groups could make the argument that their
ancestors were present 100 kya and possibly be correct
(african click speakers, certain australo or melanesian
groups), but by and large most peoples are recent immigrants
to their respective regions. What makes Native Americans
look silly, with the flood of evidence suggesting
immigration on a very long path from africa, they are one of
the most recent of the recently 'peopled' peoples. Thus the
presentation of tribal beleifs will neccesarily run in the
face of any serious discussion of origin.
thomas
2003-07-26 08:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by thomas
But many anthropologists DO insist on comparing Indian remains to
Orientals and deciding if you can't find enough similarities, it ain't
Indian, regardless of how much it looks like Indians. From this
apparent difference, they spin wild theories about how whites were
here before Indians and how Indians wiped said whites out.
That is one of the many wild theories advanced by Vine Deloria
in his book "Red Earth, White Lies". Vine is usually advertised
as the foremost critic of anthropology.
Once again we see the race card being pulled. I don't know
if there is any direct contribution by WEA or Africans into
the pre-columbian New world, when I see evidence that is
convincing I will report it.
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
Point being that this particular "wild theory" is not unique to
racist white crackpots of the Asatru persuasion, but is also being
propagated by racist Indian crackpots such as Deloria.

Of course, Deloria has also argued that humans originated in South
Africa after being genetically engineered by spacemen from
the planet Nibiru to serve as slaves in the spacemen's gold
mines. How he reconciles this with his American genesis
theory is not immediately apparent....
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-26 13:41:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:34:00 +0100, Doug Weller
But this wild idea is not one I have seen associated with him -- but I
gather that in God is Red he draws from Sitchin, is that what you are
referring to?
See there, there's another theory of mine blown to hell. I
though god was invisible, but if you saw him you shrivel up
like a petunia in a hot desert. We need a whole new group on
the internet devoted to the color of god.

I recommend:

alt.religion.preoccupied.colorofgod.proofs.mathematical

[The last segment was added for Wilkens]











[OK, so, yeah, I am Joking]
MIB529
2003-07-27 16:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Actually, he draws from Velikovsky in Red Earth White Lies. Vine's
hard to understand unless you've met him in person. He doesn't believe
most of the stuff he mentions in REWL, for example; he does, however,
believe that the land bridge is about as believable as some of the
stuff. A real cynic, that one.

Hell, in a debate with Weller, I got him down to using unbeatable
arguments like "Maybe Indians stuck to a now-underwater coastline so
any artifacts in North America are now underwater." Too bad science
works with evidence, not unbeatable arguments.
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:34:00 +0100, Doug Weller
But this wild idea is not one I have seen associated with him -- but I
gather that in God is Red he draws from Sitchin, is that what you are
referring to?
<snip>
Eric Stevens
2003-07-27 20:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Actually, he draws from Velikovsky in Red Earth White Lies. Vine's
hard to understand unless you've met him in person. He doesn't believe
most of the stuff he mentions in REWL, for example; he does, however,
believe that the land bridge is about as believable as some of the
stuff. A real cynic, that one.
Hell, in a debate with Weller, I got him down to using unbeatable
arguments like "Maybe Indians stuck to a now-underwater coastline so
any artifacts in North America are now underwater." Too bad science
works with evidence, not unbeatable arguments.
Nevertheless, that coastline is now underwater and so too are any
artifacts. You can't ignore them simply because they are almost
impossible to find. However, they don't carry much weight in an
argument until you can raise a reasonable probablity that they exist.



Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-07-28 18:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Hell, in a debate with Weller, I got him down to using unbeatable
arguments like "Maybe Indians stuck to a now-underwater coastline so
any artifacts in North America are now underwater." Too bad science
works with evidence, not unbeatable arguments.
Nevertheless, that coastline is now underwater and so too are any
artifacts. You can't ignore them simply because they are almost
impossible to find. However, they don't carry much weight in an
argument until you can raise a reasonable probablity that they exist.
The problem is, they are willing to ignore as-of-yet-not-found
artifacts in the Americas but not as-of-yet-not-found artifacts in
Siberia. Confirm on one end, deny on the other.

Remember, we don't have to have Indians staying along the coastline
just through the glaciers, Eric; we have to have Indians staying along
the coastline from somewhere in China, perhaps Japan, ALL THE WAY into
Chile. THAT is the kind of coastal migration we're talking about here.

Also, coasts are more humid and therefore more likely to have been
glaciated during the Wisconsonian.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-26 14:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by thomas
But many anthropologists DO insist on comparing Indian remains to
Orientals and deciding if you can't find enough similarities, it ain't
Indian, regardless of how much it looks like Indians. From this
apparent difference, they spin wild theories about how whites were
here before Indians and how Indians wiped said whites out.
That is one of the many wild theories advanced by Vine Deloria
in his book "Red Earth, White Lies". Vine is usually advertised
as the foremost critic of anthropology.
Once again we see the race card being pulled. I don't know
if there is any direct contribution by WEA or Africans into
the pre-columbian New world, when I see evidence that is
convincing I will report it.
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
Point being that this particular "wild theory" is not unique to
racist white crackpots of the Asatru persuasion, but is also being
propagated by racist Indian crackpots such as Deloria.
Of course, Deloria has also argued that humans originated in South
Africa after being genetically engineered by spacemen from
the planet Nibiru to serve as slaves in the spacemen's gold
mines. How he reconciles this with his American genesis
theory is not immediately apparent....
I would be very interested in fetting a reference for these views
Thanks
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Tedd
2003-07-26 18:38:02 UTC
Permalink
My main point is: any scientific theory is to some extent corrupted
by one's preconceptions. In the field of Anthropology, any biases
about groups of people will necessarily bias the interpretations,
thereby corrupting the theories.
a post-modernist arguement used by arm-chair anthropologist in an attempt to
continually rehash non-starter issues and to revitalize Boas because they still
believe there is credibility to psycic unity. this is where anthropologists
become appologists.
As far as who is racist: there are three basic types of people who
will admit to racism. First is the inveterate racist who thinks
racism is proper. Second is the inveterate racist who is trying to
excuse his/her racism with an 'everybody does it' cop out. Third is
the more enlightened type of person who realizes that tribalistic
feelings are a basic part of the human psyche, and uses the awareness
of his/her residual racism as a tool to try to minimize his/her
racism.
Everyone else is in denial.
I try to be in the third category. As a chemist, any residual racism
plays a small role at worst in my work. However, anthropological
theories can only approach reality when one is willing to examine
racism both in oneself and in others.
post-modern apologist, everyone in denial, examine racism,... sounds more like
sociology.

tedd.
Bob Lancaster
2003-07-27 14:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tedd
My main point is: any scientific theory is to some extent corrupted
by one's preconceptions. In the field of Anthropology, any biases
about groups of people will necessarily bias the interpretations,
thereby corrupting the theories.
a post-modernist arguement used by arm-chair anthropologist in an attempt to
continually rehash non-starter issues and to revitalize Boas because they still
believe there is credibility to psycic unity. this is where anthropologists
become appologists.
Still, you have not addressed my main point. Simple questions here:

(1) Is it at least theoretically possible for anthropology to be
tainted by racism? If not, why do anthropologists argue over the
point themselves?

(2) Are anthropologists infallible? If not, and if it is at least
theoretically possible for anthropology to be tainted by racism,
doesn't it make sense that anthropology could be tainted by racism?

(3) Is there or is there not anger and distrust within Native
communuties towards anthropologist? If not, why have I known so many
Native Americans who distrust anthropologists until a particular
anthropologist is shown to be trustworthy.

(4) Assuming there are Native Americans who distrust anthropologists,
is there any justification for this distrusts? Don't assume that
these are just ignorant savages and/or Indian racists. I've known
Native Americans who were very bright, very well educated and very
closely tied to both Native and white society who felt this way.

It seems that all I've gotten from you is either social-science
gobbledygook. or completely changing the subject.

As far as whether or not anthropologist should be apologists, it seems
to be that, like it or not, anthropologists have a lot to apologize
for.

The tragic example of Kenniwick man has been brought up a number of
times. Truly sad, because I know some of the stuff that had been
going on in that general neck of the woods (not that far from Boise,
actually).

I worked with a Native American group not too far away that once had
an Honor Dance at a 'pow-wow' for a local anthropologist. Many of the
Indians in that group were from tribes that sued over Kenniwick man.
I met that particular anthropologist on a few occasions.

I met a fellow who represented a nearby reservation in a number of
committees: dealing with land-use issues, dams on the Columbia and
Snake rivers, etc. This guy worked quite well with scientists,
governments, land owners, fishermen, etc. His reservation sued over
Kenniwick man.

I knew a woman, coincidentally a scientist, who worked with a local
tribe when the tribe revealed to her that there was a sacred location
for their tribe on her land. She and her husband worked out a deal so
the tribe could have access to the spot, and the tribe restored it. A
very touching ceremony was held on the land. That tribe sued over
Kenniwick Man.

And so on.

And so, some racist actions in the Kenniwick Man fiasco did so much
damage, creating distrust despite the good works of many others.
Post by Tedd
As far as who is racist: there are three basic types of people who
will admit to racism. First is the inveterate racist who thinks
racism is proper. Second is the inveterate racist who is trying to
excuse his/her racism with an 'everybody does it' cop out. Third is
the more enlightened type of person who realizes that tribalistic
feelings are a basic part of the human psyche, and uses the awareness
of his/her residual racism as a tool to try to minimize his/her
racism.
Everyone else is in denial.
I try to be in the third category. As a chemist, any residual racism
plays a small role at worst in my work. However, anthropological
theories can only approach reality when one is willing to examine
racism both in oneself and in others.
post-modern apologist, everyone in denial, examine racism,... sounds more like
sociology.
tedd.
More social-science gobbledygook. I'm a physical scientist, so please
use logical arguments. First of all, who says there is a clear line
between anthropology and sociology? Also, with so much anthropology
tainted by racism, it would seem to me that it would behoove
anthropologists to examine their work. Handwaving arguments don't cut
it. You haven't shown that anthropology is untainted by racism. You
haven't shown that anthropology is so pure that some examination would
be useless.

Sorry, but racism leads to logical fallicies. Logical fallicies lead
to bad science. Simple as that. Please either concede the point, go
away, or give a logical answer. You've criticized Vine DeLoria (who
has some very strong strengths and some very glaring weaknesses) and a
few others. You've scoffed at sociologists for daring to examine
their theories. You haven't answered the basic questions.

-Bob
thomas
2003-07-27 23:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Can you give examples of racism leading to scientific bias
in contemporary anthropology?

You did mention Kennewick man. I am aware of white-identity
religious groups making political hay out of that, and Indian
tribes making political hay out of it based on religious beliefs.
But is that an example of racial bias in contemporary anthropology?

I am not arguing that there is no racial bias in contemporary
anthropology. I just would like to see some examples of what
you're driving at.
Post by Bob Lancaster
Post by Tedd
My main point is: any scientific theory is to some extent corrupted
by one's preconceptions. In the field of Anthropology, any biases
about groups of people will necessarily bias the interpretations,
thereby corrupting the theories.
a post-modernist arguement used by arm-chair anthropologist in an attempt to
continually rehash non-starter issues and to revitalize Boas because they still
believe there is credibility to psycic unity. this is where anthropologists
become appologists.
(1) Is it at least theoretically possible for anthropology to be
tainted by racism? If not, why do anthropologists argue over the
point themselves?
(2) Are anthropologists infallible? If not, and if it is at least
theoretically possible for anthropology to be tainted by racism,
doesn't it make sense that anthropology could be tainted by racism?
(3) Is there or is there not anger and distrust within Native
communuties towards anthropologist? If not, why have I known so many
Native Americans who distrust anthropologists until a particular
anthropologist is shown to be trustworthy.
(4) Assuming there are Native Americans who distrust anthropologists,
is there any justification for this distrusts? Don't assume that
these are just ignorant savages and/or Indian racists. I've known
Native Americans who were very bright, very well educated and very
closely tied to both Native and white society who felt this way.
It seems that all I've gotten from you is either social-science
gobbledygook. or completely changing the subject.
As far as whether or not anthropologist should be apologists, it seems
to be that, like it or not, anthropologists have a lot to apologize
for.
The tragic example of Kenniwick man has been brought up a number of
times. Truly sad, because I know some of the stuff that had been
going on in that general neck of the woods (not that far from Boise,
actually).
I worked with a Native American group not too far away that once had
an Honor Dance at a 'pow-wow' for a local anthropologist. Many of the
Indians in that group were from tribes that sued over Kenniwick man.
I met that particular anthropologist on a few occasions.
I met a fellow who represented a nearby reservation in a number of
committees: dealing with land-use issues, dams on the Columbia and
Snake rivers, etc. This guy worked quite well with scientists,
governments, land owners, fishermen, etc. His reservation sued over
Kenniwick man.
I knew a woman, coincidentally a scientist, who worked with a local
tribe when the tribe revealed to her that there was a sacred location
for their tribe on her land. She and her husband worked out a deal so
the tribe could have access to the spot, and the tribe restored it. A
very touching ceremony was held on the land. That tribe sued over
Kenniwick Man.
And so on.
And so, some racist actions in the Kenniwick Man fiasco did so much
damage, creating distrust despite the good works of many others.
Post by Tedd
As far as who is racist: there are three basic types of people who
will admit to racism. First is the inveterate racist who thinks
racism is proper. Second is the inveterate racist who is trying to
excuse his/her racism with an 'everybody does it' cop out. Third is
the more enlightened type of person who realizes that tribalistic
feelings are a basic part of the human psyche, and uses the awareness
of his/her residual racism as a tool to try to minimize his/her
racism.
Everyone else is in denial.
I try to be in the third category. As a chemist, any residual racism
plays a small role at worst in my work. However, anthropological
theories can only approach reality when one is willing to examine
racism both in oneself and in others.
post-modern apologist, everyone in denial, examine racism,... sounds more like
sociology.
tedd.
More social-science gobbledygook. I'm a physical scientist, so please
use logical arguments. First of all, who says there is a clear line
between anthropology and sociology? Also, with so much anthropology
tainted by racism, it would seem to me that it would behoove
anthropologists to examine their work. Handwaving arguments don't cut
it. You haven't shown that anthropology is untainted by racism. You
haven't shown that anthropology is so pure that some examination would
be useless.
Sorry, but racism leads to logical fallicies. Logical fallicies lead
to bad science. Simple as that. Please either concede the point, go
away, or give a logical answer. You've criticized Vine DeLoria (who
has some very strong strengths and some very glaring weaknesses) and a
few others. You've scoffed at sociologists for daring to examine
their theories. You haven't answered the basic questions.
-Bob
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-27 23:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
Can you give examples of racism leading to scientific bias
in contemporary anthropology?
You did mention Kennewick man. I am aware of white-identity
religious groups making political hay out of that, and Indian
tribes making political hay out of it based on religious beliefs.
But is that an example of racial bias in contemporary anthropology?
I think there were some early, understandable, mistatements
made. I don't think Kennewick is a single 'race' but from
the evidence I have seen an admix between WEA and melanesian
derived peoples (my guess is that it is WEA/Middle
eastern/Melanesian/Native american admix)
Post by thomas
I am not arguing that there is no racial bias in contemporary
anthropology. I just would like to see some examples of what
you're driving at.
Many anthropological theories are biased because of the
temptation of individuals to do research in their backyard.
MREH is a good example of a ethnocentric theory, because
there was an abundance of information from europe and a
dearth of information from africa and because archaeologist
are absolutely horrid statisticians, they keep trying to
move the emergence of humans away from africa to eurasia.
The less subjective molecular information tore that line of
bias to hell and began leading archaeologist to look in
other places. It is called research bias. For example a
portugues researcher is paid by his government to study
archaeology in portugal, even though protugal is sort of a
backwater of human evolution, his grant depends on him
making something big out of that 'backwater' as a result he
is going to not dig in africa, or india or any place
implicit by molecular information as being an early site,
and spend time investigating dozer fodder and try to make
that fodder look like an important transition in human
evolution.
Bob Lancaster
2003-07-28 15:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
Can you give examples of racism leading to scientific bias
in contemporary anthropology?
You did mention Kennewick man. I am aware of white-identity
religious groups making political hay out of that, and Indian
tribes making political hay out of it based on religious beliefs.
But is that an example of racial bias in contemporary anthropology?
I am not arguing that there is no racial bias in contemporary
anthropology. I just would like to see some examples of what
you're driving at.
[snip]

How do you define recent? At one point Tedd Jacobs was defining
recent as 20th and 21st Centuries. I gave two examples: Kenniwick Man
was one. The other: in the early 20th century an anthropologist
wrote a paper which concluded, among other things, that a famous
ancestor of mine could not possibly have existed. I didn't mention
her name: Nancy Ward. I just did a Google search on 'Nancy Ward
Cherokee', and came up with 16,300 results. Not bad for a ficticious
person. BTW, she was one of the best known Indian leaders of her
time, at a time when the Indian nations played a very important role.
Very sloppy research. Shortly before then, a fellow named Theodore
Roosevelt, residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in the District of
Columbia, wrote about her life. I gather most anthropologists at the
time had at least heard of Roosevelt. Or, the researcher could've
simply gone over to Tennessee, and would've found a DAR chapter named
after her. Or, he could've examined the writings of Thomas Jefferson,
who coincidentally once resided as the same address as T. Roosevelt.

Or does modern start with Margaret Meade? There have certainly been
allegations that her biases led her to write wildly fanciful things
about Samoan society, and that certain Samoans egged her on a bit.
Lots of Samoans complain about her, but what do they know? SHE was
the famous scientist, after all.

In another post Floyd Davidson gave an excellent account of the errors
made by anthropologists, and their reputation in Northern Alaska.
Strange as it may seem, one can find stories like that from all over.

Or, how about the case of the Yamamono? I realize this is a *very*
touchy issue among anthropologists at this time, but there are
allegations of racism at best, genocide at worst.

Or, how about Colin Turnbull? He liked Pygmies better than some other
Africans, and it certainly showed in his writing.

And, there is Kenniwick Man. The racism I see comes in mutiple parts:

(1) The scientists involved did not consider the tribes' cultural
views on burial and respect for the dead to be as valid as the
cultural views of the scientists. This is despite NAGPRA, which
exists because of that lack of respect. In other words, federal law
says the tribes' view is the legally applicable view, but the
scientists involved refuse to acknowledge this.

(2) It appears there is a theory that says the Columbia Basin was
inhabited by a group of people around K-Man's time. Then, the group
left, leaving the Basin uninhabited for a few thousand years, after
which time the ancestors of the current tribes moved in. On the other
hand, the current tribes claim to have been in the area all that time.
The tribal stories include stories about animals that were extinct
before the theory says they arrived. So how does racism enter into
this? Quite simple. I have read of cases where archeologists, etc.
have gone to great lengths to study the Bible or European legends as
aids to their work. On the other hand, Native American legends were
dismissed out of hand.

(3) The claims that K-man wasn't Indian may or may not have been
racist, but it undeniably stirred up racism.



Or, we could get into the pre-'modern' anthropologists, and the
skeletons still in Anthopology's closet, or in the museums. Consider
the Sand Creek massacre. The US soldiers killed every last old
person, woman and child in village, boiled the skin and flesh off
their bones, and sent the bones to the Smithsonian Institute. This
was NOT an isolated incident.

One of the goals of NAGPRA was the return of the bones and sacred
artifacts taken in earlier times. Some museums have been rather slow
about doing the work required of them. That is certainly seen as
racist by Indians, with good reason.


In any case, one of my points was not only the existence of racism but
the *perception* of racism by Native peoples. Strange as it may seem,
folks who have been on this land for tens of thousands of years do not
consider the 1990s, or even the 1800s, as ancient history. When
Native people encounter anthropologists, they are looking at a group
which was complicit in genocide, stole cultural artifacts, desecrated
dead bodies and sacred objects, filmed secret sacred ceremonies,
trivialized Native customs and tribal stories, and often just plain
got things wrong. Useless at best, genocidal at worst.

Of course, there are exceptions. However, hostility of native peoples
makes any work much more difficult than if the native peoples were
friendly. And so, any anthropologist or archeologist has the burden
of proving that s/he respects the Native culture, won't try to distort
it, and that s/he isn't a useless bumbling idiot.



Ah, I grow tired of this thread. It seems I am always having to try
to teach things that should be on the first page of any anthropology,
archeology or sociology book. This is just a little history and
common sense. No more from me for a while. Anyone who doesn't get it
by now never will.

-Bob
Tedd
2003-07-28 23:21:01 UTC
Permalink
"Bob Lancaster" <***@zxmail.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

<snip>
Post by Bob Lancaster
Ah, I grow tired of this thread. It seems I am always having to try
to teach things that should be on the first page of any anthropology,
archeology or sociology book. This is just a little history and
common sense. No more from me for a while. Anyone who doesn't get it
by now never will.
-Bob
can i have my plastic spoon back before you go? :-P~

;-)
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-28 21:39:07 UTC
Permalink
During the whole debacle, you had C Loring Brace claiming on ABC that
Indians were Neanderthals (To give you an idea of how racist THAT is,
even the Pioneer Fund admits that Indians are human.)
Have you got a citation for Brace's statement? It sounds pretty
far-fetched to me that he would say that on TV.
Brace claimed that ancestors of Ainu probably came from WEA
and since he believes in multiregionalist, stands to reason
he belives the Aiun are descended from Neandertals, and
since Kenniwick is similar to Ainu descended from
Neandertal. It is possible to look at Brace's work on
eastern asian and native americans will 'forgetting' about
his insane position of WEA origins.

Shall I bring in my Highland/Dryland theory for some comic
relief?

Brace has taken the time to understand and connect asian
archaeology with american archaeology, and since the lithic
period along the east asian coast now is about 45 to 16 ky
depending where you look (all dates before 45 have been
thrown out at least down to the ryukyu chain). I think with
the 500 kya material out of the way his views on Neandertals
within the east asian context are immaterial.
BTW, from what I understand about Brace's click, having
Neandertal genetic makeup is a good thing, they attribute
the cultural advances in middle east and Europe to that
makeup. (Hybrid vigor) So you can't really offer it up as a
sign of racism, they tend to think Neandertals made humans
smart and creative.
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-28 07:46:27 UTC
Permalink
The point is, MIB is a Native American who is well aware of the
reputation anthropologists have in the Native community. If he says
Anthropology has a reputation for racism, it would be foolish to
ignore him out of hand.
Surely that is an "OOOOpppsss"! If MIB's arguments are correct or
otherwise have absolutely NOTHING to do with MIB being a "Native
American". Quite frankly you have yourself fallen into the trap of
using a racist argument, as you base your whole argument on the basis
of an ethnicity or "race" - the "...because he is X race/ethnicity he
knows..". THAT is RACISM!
That statement is just silly.

The claim that MIB knows Indians because MIB is an Indian isn't
racist at all. It's common sense that he knows the back of own
hand...
(2) The field of Anthropology is necessarily tainted by the racism,
conscious or otherwise, of anthropologists.
That has to also be eliminated as there is absolutely NO NEED to
resort to racism for anthropology. To believe so is to MISUNDERSTAND
what racism is - or in the alternative a support thereof and a
"justification" for it.
More silliness.

You are correct that racism is not necessary to anthropology.
So what? That has *nothing* to do with whether it exists or not.


Oh, my... I might as well poke you with a stick or two while
I'm at it. Years ago I posted my take on how well
anthropologists were received by Alaska Natives in the 1950's
and 1960's. These were the anthropologist who said

1) Eskimos have no government,
2) Native history is all mythology and not reliable,
3) Alaska Natives had not concept of private property, and
4) Alaska Natives had nothing that resembled a Nation, but
were just separate family bands.

Well, in the 1970's the impression that I got from my neighbors,
not to mention my inlaws, was that the average Yup'ik Eskimo
family household consisted of 4 adults (Grandmother, Mother,
Father, and one Aunt or Uncle), 5.1 children, 6.3 dogs, and 0.7
anthropologist. They were considered important in the order
listed. Grandmother owned the house, and it would pass to
Mother if Grandmother died. Father (and other males) were
providers, while Mother (and other females) are preparers. Dogs
were necessary (back before snowmachines) for work and useful as
pets.

The anthropologist was worthless, got in the way, couldn't be
trusted, and unlike the dog an anthropologist _will_ bite
the hand that feeds it.

Hence the anthropologist is necessarily lower than a dog,
which would get better food and a warmer place to sleep.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-28 14:54:44 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
Post by Floyd Davidson
2) Native history is all mythology and not reliable,
Every cultures unwritten history is largely myth. Wanna talk
about adam and eve? How about moses parting the red sea.
Post by Floyd Davidson
The anthropologist was worthless, got in the way, couldn't be
trusted, and unlike the dog an anthropologist _will_ bite
the hand that feeds it.
Hence the anthropologist is necessarily lower than a dog,
which would get better food and a warmer place to sleep.
You're not speaking bad of cultural anthropologist are you,
perish that thought! ANNE come over here and straiten the
man up about the worthiness of those cultural
anthropologist.
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-28 17:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
They always did. But in 250+ years of contact with Western
"civilization", none of the Western observers were able to tell
that. You'll find that *every* book, right up to about 1970,
claims they had no form of government. You won't find even one
published after about 1975 saying that. (In the late 1960's the
people of Akiak and a dozen other Alaskan villages decided
Western influence from BIA boarding schools was making it
impossible to continue teaching civics to their children in the
traditional way, so they hired an anthropologist and recorded
their form of government in the Western way.)

Imagine that. From the early 1700s to the late 1900's, and
Western observers couldn't even tell they had a government!

Now, guess what characteristic of Western observers caused them
to miss that minor point? They all were blind? They were all
dumb? What was *every* *single* *one* *of* *them*?
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Floyd Davidson
2) Native history is all mythology and not reliable,
Every cultures unwritten history is largely myth. Wanna talk
about adam and eve? How about moses parting the red sea.
Any anthropologist who says that in regard to Native American
history is a fool.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Floyd Davidson
The anthropologist was worthless, got in the way, couldn't be
trusted, and unlike the dog an anthropologist _will_ bite
the hand that feeds it.
Hence the anthropologist is necessarily lower than a dog,
which would get better food and a warmer place to sleep.
You're not speaking bad of cultural anthropologist are you,
perish that thought! ANNE come over here and straiten the
man up about the worthiness of those cultural
anthropologist.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-28 20:32:15 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Jul 2003 09:34:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
They always did. But in 250+ years of contact with Western
"civilization", none of the Western observers were able to tell
that. You'll find that *every* book, right up to about 1970,
claims they had no form of government. You won't find even one
published after about 1975 saying that. (In the late 1960's the
people of Akiak and a dozen other Alaskan villages decided
Western influence from BIA boarding schools was making it
impossible to continue teaching civics to their children in the
traditional way, so they hired an anthropologist and recorded
their form of government in the Western way.)
They had no officially recognized government, of course by
circularly defined standards. Governments of this per say
came out of "reservation phase" of european occupation and
the establishment of autonomous regions. Inuvet is the only
truly Native American state that currently exists, and it is
just that, a state.
But that you mention it a government has to consist of
some sort of written credo, no matter how awful those
credo's are. For example "Saddam has all the power disagree
with him and die".

Government is composed of several components
A written document with a set of maps, surveys which define
ones territory (Helps if you have your territory marked off,
so that for instance when you find a dead frozen man in the
ice you know which country he belongs in).

A written document describing your political structure, who
had authority, what are their responsibilities.

A collection of people fulfilling that authoritative roles.

And a group of people who are charged with
negotiating/communicating with neighboring countries and
accepting neighboring country officials for the purpose of
mutual recognition of the right to exist.

A means of self-perpetration (Taxation or citizen
requirements to fund these bodies above).

A group of people capable, minimally, of composing a self
defense force for defending all of the above.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What might suffice as government is a set of paintings or
drawings recognizable by parties as boundaries.

Some description of what the laws are and how they are
enforced (graphical or otherwise). Before writing there used
to be public orators who would sort of regurgitate what
was agreed upon by the leaders.

A leadership council that has a means of succession built
into it.

Envoys or agents.

A posse controlled by the leadership council.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But this issue with Inuit/Eskimoes is that life around the
arctic is tough and populations per square mile tend to be
low, people then tend to spread out in search of prey of
opportunity. This type of lifestyle does not easily lend
itself to western government without major technological
innovations. So not have a formal western styled government
is not to be faulted if you live as close to a frozen
wasteland as one can live. There is, for example, no formal
government on antarctica. And I am pretty sure you could run
around buck naked on the Kreugerland Islands (Fr. Southern
hemispheres equivalent of iceland) and not to many people
would pull you down and stop you. So basically government is
agreements between people who might run into each other and
occasional settlements. While eskimos may have government
within the settlements, it probably did not extend as far as
government go and pre-Russian settlements came and went
according to many factors.
Inuvet has a defined state within canada and also has a
governmental seat, a capital. I suppose that if anyone
breaks a law in Inuvet (and get caught) they will probably
be dragged to the capital for a trial according to laws of
Inuvet (and possibly canada).
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-28 21:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 09:34:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
They always did. But in 250+ years of contact with Western
"civilization", none of the Western observers were able to tell
that. You'll find that *every* book, right up to about 1970,
claims they had no form of government. You won't find even one
published after about 1975 saying that. (In the late 1960's the
people of Akiak and a dozen other Alaskan villages decided
Western influence from BIA boarding schools was making it
impossible to continue teaching civics to their children in the
traditional way, so they hired an anthropologist and recorded
their form of government in the Western way.)
They had no officially recognized government, of course by
circularly defined standards. Governments of this per say
"No officially recognized government"???? Are you daft or do
you just want to put on a display of *exactly* the kind of
thinking the rest of us were talking about?

They had a *very* sophisticated form of government *before* any
Europeans showed up. The still have it. It was so
sophisticated in the early 1740's when the Russians first
officially came to Alaska that not one of them noticed that it
existed. That continued to be true as other Westerners arrived
in the 1800's. That continued to be true in the 1900's as the
whole world visited.

And even now in the 2000's, *you* don't seem to be able to get
past your bias to see it yet.

Pretty good example of that bias, eh?
Post by Philip Deitiker
came out of "reservation phase" of european occupation and
the establishment of autonomous regions. Inuvet is the only
So you think they recognized no governments and had no
autonomous regions until Europeans came and established them?

Pardon me while a roll around on the floor. What kind of
an education do you have anyway? You must have studied
anthropology in 1955... or was that 1855? (Or was there
any difference?)
Post by Philip Deitiker
truly Native American state that currently exists, and it is
just that, a state.
Is that so? Try telling my daughter that. She works for a
tribal government and part of her job has been to be *very*
concerned about tribal sovereignty. (She also has a Juris
Doctorate in Indian Law, so this not trivial.)
Post by Philip Deitiker
But that you mention it a government has to consist of
some sort of written credo, no matter how awful those
Oh, I see... If it doesn't look like a European government,
it isn't a government. Are you perhaps a little Eurocentric?
Post by Philip Deitiker
credo's are. For example "Saddam has all the power disagree
with him and die".
Government is composed of several components
A written document with a set of maps, surveys which define
ones territory (Helps if you have your territory marked off,
so that for instance when you find a dead frozen man in the
ice you know which country he belongs in).
A government doesn't need *any* of that.
Post by Philip Deitiker
A written document describing your political structure, who
had authority, what are their responsibilities.
It has to be on a written document, eh? Do you know what the
Great Binding Law of the League of Nations is? Do you know how
long it existed prior Westerners writing it down on paper?
Post by Philip Deitiker
A collection of people fulfilling that authoritative roles.
And a group of people who are charged with
negotiating/communicating with neighboring countries and
accepting neighboring country officials for the purpose of
mutual recognition of the right to exist.
A means of self-perpetration (Taxation or citizen
requirements to fund these bodies above).
A group of people capable, minimally, of composing a self
defense force for defending all of the above.
So what is the point of your list? It does help to demonstrate
the bias we have been talking about, but that is probably
accidental on your part. What did you expect that list to
demonstrate?

...
Post by Philip Deitiker
But this issue with Inuit/Eskimoes is that life around the
arctic is tough and populations per square mile tend to be
low, people then tend to spread out in search of prey of
opportunity. This type of lifestyle does not easily lend
itself to western government without major technological
innovations.
Well, we could also say that Europe, what with the excess of
devastated social and environmental history, doesn't easily lend
itself to Inuit governance without major social innovations.

You are once again acting as if Western style government is the
only "real" government, and that anything else is essentially
non-existent because it is non-significant.
Post by Philip Deitiker
So not have a formal western styled government
is not to be faulted if you live as close to a frozen
wasteland as one can live.
Oh, and now it's a "frozen wasteland"? Have you any idea just
how productive that "frozen wasteland" is? Why do you think a
bazillion migratory birds fly thousands of miles to come here to
nest and raise their offspring? Why do you think bowhead and
grey whales do the same? Why does the Porcupine caribou herd
migrate hundreds of miles every year to be here.

And you do realize that Native Alaskans live all the way down in
Ketchikan. And the Eskimo people live on Prince William Sound
(Valdez) and Kodiak Island. While those places are not
tropical, the do have temperate rain-forests there, and calling
any part of southcentral or southwestern Alaska a "frozen
wasteland" is just absurd in any way you want to put it.

And in northern Alaska, why have humans lived right here where I
do for thousands of years?
Post by Philip Deitiker
There is, for example, no formal
government on antarctica. And I am pretty sure you could run
There are no permanent residents of the Antarctic. (Regardless,
you are wrong about there being no formal government. There
is.) You might have noted that several different kinds of
people in Alaska today have been here for thousands of years.
Ain't it strange that they developed governance, and it isn't
even related to European culture, laws, or social concepts!
Unbelievable, eh?
Post by Philip Deitiker
around buck naked on the Kreugerland Islands (Fr. Southern
hemispheres equivalent of iceland) and not to many people
would pull you down and stop you. So basically government is
agreements between people who might run into each other and
occasional settlements. While eskimos may have government
within the settlements, it probably did not extend as far as
government go and pre-Russian settlements came and went
according to many factors.
See, there you go again with assumptions totally based on
Eurocentric notions that simply do not apply here. Worse
yet, you've probably never been north of the Arctic Circle
and you are telling me what kind of a place I live in.

And you just landed on another of my itemized list of points
demonstrating bias by anthropologists:

1) Eskimos have no government,
2) Native history is all mythology and not reliable,
3) Alaska Natives had not concept of private property, and
4) Alaska Natives had nothing that resembled a Nation, but
were just separate family bands.

See number 4, and then tell me again what an expert you are on
"eskimos may have government within the settlements, it probably
did not..." do what you can't imagine. The problem is, your
imagination is limited by your bias.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Inuvet has a defined state within canada and also has a
governmental seat, a capital. I suppose that if anyone
breaks a law in Inuvet (and get caught) they will probably
be dragged to the capital for a trial according to laws of
Inuvet (and possibly canada).
Is that some how significant to your point? Or is your
bias suggesting that is really odd and unique in some
way for Eskimos?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Tedd
2003-07-28 23:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 09:34:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
<snip>
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
They had no officially recognized government, of course by
circularly defined standards. Governments of this per say
"No officially recognized government"???? Are you daft or do
you just want to put on a display of *exactly* the kind of
thinking the rest of us were talking about?
floyd, i think you missed a key qualifying statement that phillip made;

"...by circularly defined standards."

what this statement does is recognize that "officially recognized government" is
being based on a westernized standard and acknowledges that it is based upon an
outsiders bias.

phillip then goes on to discribe the statutes that define a 'westernized'
governments points of recognition and the roll of the "state".

he's not doubting that there was some form of governing involved, which is the
point you are trying to take up. he just showed you the "flaws" in the
westernized depiction of government and why they "...couldn't even tell they had
a government" by they way they define it, and where the implementation of the
"state" falls within that depiction. yes it's eurocentric, thats a given, it's
based on where it came from. thats why the statement was qualified "...by
circularly defined standards."

tedd.

p.s. he's sucking you into the argument here floyd, ;)
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-28 23:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 09:34:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
<snip>
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
They had no officially recognized government, of course by
circularly defined standards. Governments of this per say
"No officially recognized government"???? Are you daft or do
you just want to put on a display of *exactly* the kind of
thinking the rest of us were talking about?
floyd, i think you missed a key qualifying statement that phillip made;
"...by circularly defined standards."
No, he (and probably you) missed the point that his circularly
defined standards are biased with the intent of eliminating
non-Western governments from the definition.

*THAT* is exactly what I was talking about.

Regardless, he is still wrong. They did.
Post by Daryl Krupa
what this statement does is recognize that "officially recognized government" is
being based on a westernized standard and acknowledges that it is based upon an
outsiders bias.
Exactly, so why deny that said bias exists?
Post by Daryl Krupa
phillip then goes on to discribe the statutes that define a 'westernized'
governments points of recognition and the roll of the "state".
All of which is just clutter to continue the characterization of
Native governance as non-existant and insignificant.

A very nice demonstration of the point *you* seem to have missed.
Post by Daryl Krupa
he's not doubting that there was some form of governing involved, which is the
point you are trying to take up. he just showed you the "flaws" in the
westernized depiction of government and why they "...couldn't even tell they had
a government" by they way they define it, and where the implementation of the
"state" falls within that depiction. yes it's eurocentric, thats a given, it's
based on where it came from. thats why the statement was qualified "...by
circularly defined standards."
I didn't get the impression that he was agreeing with me at all.
Post by Daryl Krupa
tedd.
p.s. he's sucking you into the argument here floyd, ;)
Really? OH MY.

(My goodness aren't you the naive one.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Tedd
2003-07-29 02:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
No, he (and probably you) missed the point that his circularly
defined standards are biased with the intent of eliminating
non-Western governments from the definition.
(sigh... try and grant some people their point and they still find a way to
disagree...)
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-29 03:02:48 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Jul 2003 15:49:30 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Tedd
"...by circularly defined standards."
No, he (and probably you) missed the point that his circularly
defined standards are biased with the intent of eliminating
non-Western governments from the definition.
I didn't miss the point; however I countered the point that
the lengua franca of governments was a certain way. Its sort
of if everyone in a country speaks a language and you speak
a different language, your language is valid, but useless if
noone you speak to understands it. From the point of veiw to
the evolvers and refiners of governments, unless you make a
public written declaration that you are a government, you
don't exist.
Post by Floyd Davidson
*THAT* is exactly what I was talking about.
Regardless, he is still wrong. They did.
Did what?
In canada, bout a year ago, yes.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Tedd
what this statement does is recognize that "officially recognized government" is
being based on a westernized standard and acknowledges that it is based upon an
outsiders bias.
Exactly, so why deny that said bias exists?
The bias only exists in the word usage, which I didn't
create. Is 'government' eurocentric, yes, it is a word
created and defined by europeans. You can also say the
definition of the word 'kilt' is eurocentric, and the word
'cheesecake'.
Post by Floyd Davidson
All of which is just clutter to continue the characterization of
Native governance as non-existant and insignificant.
I didn't say insignificant. Native 'governance' has been far
from insignificant and non-existent. However from a
'governmental' point of view they have lacked official
frameworks until western bodies have forced them into such
capacities. As I said circularly defined, the language of
government is defined by europeans and their derivative
populations; however since WWII is begin redefined by other
peoples globally. The usage is an evolving definition but is
within the context of what is recognizable by the majority
of the rest of the world. Eskimos are recognized by the US
government as with native tribes, and they have the ability
to create laws within the 'reservation' system; however they
lack many of the provisions of 'state' in which the body of
native americans in some territory is in complete control of
their governance.
Post by Floyd Davidson
A very nice demonstration of the point *you* seem to have missed.
I don't think he missed my point; however, in your emotive
knee-jerk reaction, you appear to have missed it.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Tedd
"state" falls within that depiction. yes it's eurocentric, thats a given, it's
based on where it came from. thats why the statement was qualified "...by
circularly defined standards."
I didn't get the impression that he was agreeing with me at all.
I agree that the eskimoes had governance in the context of
isolated societies; however in the context of dealing with
an expansive western society, they lack certain provisions
that would gain them broader recognition within a global
context. For certain peoples, like the evenk or chukchi
whether or not they define themselves is immaterial because
the central government of Russia has little ability to
govern them even if they claim as such. It is more or less a
vacuous claim if large portions of a group remain outside
the envelope which connects most other segments of society.
However if they had made the declaration that they wanted to
be independent had convened a council and were protesting
Russias occupation of Evenk or Yakut lands then you would
say they are in the process of consituting a government. You
can't say this about alaskan eskimoes because the U.S.
government is heavily into northen alaska in search for oil
and for security reasons. Nor are eskimos ignoring federal
and state governments since they have become part of the
economic system within alaska.
Very difficult for you because you seem to be wrapped up
in the emotive state of the eskimo people but you have to
approach government from the standard of western government.

The idea of government has changed radically over the last
150 years. For example India wasn't officially a country but
a part of a trading company, just like Hudson Bay and other
things the English did. You should read the mandate of the
British for palestine from 1921 to 1938. Before the united
nation existed inorder for a people to have a government,
they either had to demostrate to a body of western states
they could govern, or kick a western governing body out,
demostrating the will to govern (example U.S. and China).
The fall of the ottoman despite the participation of Arabs
in the liberation of arabia did not immediately result in
governments, but mandates. One can argue that the mandate,
to this day, for palistine has not been resolved. And yet
there is governance in palestine (both in Israel who
violation of UN resolutions conditions their government for
most of the world, and for palestine, which has no state).
In africa the colonial entities make clear how the circular
motif works. British, French, Danish, Italians, and Germans
proceeded to carve up africa into controllable managable
states. A classic strategy was to create states (colonies)
whereby the agreeable parties are the majority and the
disagreeable parties are a fractured minority. There are
many peoples in africa who are contiguous but fractured in 2
or 3 different countries, a minority in every country.
I have a rather bone to pick with the U.N. because of the
inherent conflict in trying to maintain colonially defined
state boundaries and the provisions for the protection of
endemic peoples, since there was never a vote for most of
these states by the endemics and minority groups are
constantly being abused by the majority rule governments
often puppeted into power by europeans. But that is what
government is and does. The situation in africa more than
any place in the world will someday return to haunt both the
colonial nations which drew the boundaries and the UN for
not resolving to 'remap' africa when the opportunity was
right during the demise of colonialism, there.
To a large degree the governance of native americans has
blended into the american cultural background,
intermarriages of natives and derivative europeans has
resulted in mixed families in which the values of native
americans has gone into the family structure. I come from
San Antonio which has a large mixture of people of native
american descent, not just mexicans but migrant farm workers
who left reservations early on looking for independence from
that system. Many still maintain a few traditions and even
in some catholic families two sets of Icons are kept
separate. If you go into south Texas there is a considerable
amount of admixture and it is not clear in many instances
who came from where. Somewhat similar a harsh climate and
survival govern the modus operenda, enemies become mates and
no-one ask that many questions since survival in the end is
what counts (And fair skinned europeans do very poorly in
many outdoor tasks in South Texas).
The way I see it is that the last of the strong tribes,
the southern comanche were pushed out {or so we are lead to
believe, some probably diffused into non-tribal
affiliations) and when discrimation was present, natives
were all but silent, now it seems they are not afraid to
hide themselves any more. The people who flood back into
take the outdoor jobs are from many of the areas of mexico
in which natives were pushed into (after the 1948 war many
latinized indians were forced off their lands by claimants
that the spanish/mexican land claims were invalid) , and a
sort of selective process takes place, if you can walk 100
miles following utility poles for 7 days getting your food
and water on the go, there is a pretty good chance your
ancestors could manage the same. The sons and duaghters of
anglos go off to college and take jobs in bigger towns and
the region is backfilled in with native americans from all
over the place, and they are moving up the socio/political
ladder, from policemen, councilmen, etc. Basically they are
refilling lost lands but under a new political constraint
that was defined by westerners who sort of wandered off. IOW
wait long enough and the anglos will eventually tire of
trying to conquer the wind, and the way things were begins
to return. But in evolution in never returns the same. This
is the fate of Inuvet, they waited long enough and
eventually gain their own state. This will happen in other
parts of Canada soon as land disputes heat up, I think the
canadian government will be forced to recognize native land
claims in order to protect natural resources from greedy
poachers. In texas the Comanche are 'gone' but they are not
fogotten ;^).

Joe Jefferson
2003-07-29 02:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
And you just landed on another of my itemized list of points
Why do you call Mr. Deitiker an anthropologist? The only thing I've seen
him claim to be is a geneticist.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp
Site Updated November 25th, 2001

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-24 14:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-24 16:14:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:14:39 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
"White" has many contexts, it could be the color of
traditional makeup of a tribe or the fact that skin color
pales when people die, any one who insists that it must come
from some unseen contact from europe fits that catagory of a
racist, I think.

You know columbus did not sail directly to mexico, he ran
into islands, as any people would and then after further
sailing reached Mexico. Saying that gods are white and come
from this place or that place in the mexico central valley,
its a little bit far fetched for the lack of information
from other places. In terms of mexico the carribe indians
traveled between the outer islands and mexico, They may have
seen columbus and traveled to mexico informing the aztec
leaders that powerful white men are coming.


The basic problem is that these cypto-WE-racist see a hint
of something and they are on their high alters proclaiming
it as evidence. There is far more than a hint of evidence of
contact over a long period of time from Asia, and no-one is
on their high alter proclaiming it here, they are ignoring
it. If for instance Inger and Erik were talking about recent
off-continent contribution from both directions, I would
certainly think more highly of them than trying to turn
every bit of 'parallels' as evidence of pre-columbian
migration from WEA. Also note the groups they exclude, they
don't talk about the potency of the basque, legendary sea
peoples, nor do they talk about contribution from africa or
canary islands. They are simply focused on Egypt, Italy,
Spain, Ireland and _Sweden_. This is why you can say they
are racist.
MIB529
2003-07-25 01:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Very well-written, Philip. Might I add ANY contact from Asia also
makes the DNA useless, since the entire assumption of DNA is phyletic
isolation.

I have the following criteria before I believe in hyperdiffusion: 1)
An idea can't be a near-universal, 2) it has to be in both locations,
3) its evolution has to be tracked in location X, and not in location
Y, and 4) it must appear in location X before it appears in location
Y. Obviously, this hypothetical diffusion is X>Y. For technology, I
look for environmental reasons as well; if there's an environmental
reason for a technology in location Y, we can assume it was invented
independently.
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:14:39 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
"White" has many contexts, it could be the color of
traditional makeup of a tribe or the fact that skin color
pales when people die, any one who insists that it must come
from some unseen contact from europe fits that catagory of a
racist, I think.
You know columbus did not sail directly to mexico, he ran
into islands, as any people would and then after further
sailing reached Mexico. Saying that gods are white and come
from this place or that place in the mexico central valley,
its a little bit far fetched for the lack of information
from other places. In terms of mexico the carribe indians
traveled between the outer islands and mexico, They may have
seen columbus and traveled to mexico informing the aztec
leaders that powerful white men are coming.
The basic problem is that these cypto-WE-racist see a hint
of something and they are on their high alters proclaiming
it as evidence. There is far more than a hint of evidence of
contact over a long period of time from Asia, and no-one is
on their high alter proclaiming it here, they are ignoring
it. If for instance Inger and Erik were talking about recent
off-continent contribution from both directions, I would
certainly think more highly of them than trying to turn
every bit of 'parallels' as evidence of pre-columbian
migration from WEA. Also note the groups they exclude, they
don't talk about the potency of the basque, legendary sea
peoples, nor do they talk about contribution from africa or
canary islands. They are simply focused on Egypt, Italy,
Spain, Ireland and _Sweden_. This is why you can say they
are racist.
MIB529
2003-07-25 04:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man; the
"caucasoid" traits included:

Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids, and rarely
occurs in caucasoids)
Narrow face (Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the laughter coming out of my own
skull, with its cephalic index of 72.9)
Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little variation?)
Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
Indians.)
Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never
looked at Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)

His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such, he
ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming all
brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical than
assuming all Indians look alike.

He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental, and
stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early teeth rotting,
and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness. Of course, he ignores
that modern Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world,
which could probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates
does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And the
cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a
more recent invention, the fallacy of course being the assumption that
technology is a constant.
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 04:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man; the
Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids, and rarely
occurs in caucasoids)
Narrow face (Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the laughter coming out of my own
skull, with its cephalic index of 72.9)
Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little variation?)
Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
Indians.)
Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never
looked at Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)
His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such, he
ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming all
brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical than
assuming all Indians look alike.
He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental, and
stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early teeth rotting,
and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness. Of course, he ignores
that modern Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world,
which could probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates
does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And the
cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a
more recent invention, the fallacy of course being the assumption that
technology is a constant.
Can I suggest that the last thing we need to do when faced with this
kind of argument is to get bogged down with arguing on the same level.
The best thing to do is to ignore possible racist motivation and
simply deal with the facts. The only problem is that there are so many
facts in this area which are not yet known.



Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-07-25 12:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man; the
Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids, and rarely
occurs in caucasoids)
Narrow face (Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the laughter coming out of my own
skull, with its cephalic index of 72.9)
Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little variation?)
Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
Indians.)
Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never
looked at Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)
His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such, he
ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming all
brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical than
assuming all Indians look alike.
He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental, and
stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early teeth rotting,
and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness. Of course, he ignores
that modern Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world,
which could probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates
does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And the
cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a
more recent invention, the fallacy of course being the assumption that
technology is a constant.
Can I suggest that the last thing we need to do when faced with this
kind of argument is to get bogged down with arguing on the same level.
The best thing to do is to ignore possible racist motivation and
simply deal with the facts.
And the facts are that those "pre-Indian caucasoids" look virtually
identical to modern Indians. It's only by comparing them to Orientals
that you get anything different.

After mentioning the facts, it IS interesting, the motivation behind
such stories. Notice that when Kennewick man first occurred, I argued
the facts, THEN argued the motivation. (Not that I hadn't figured the
motivation out in, like, five seconds. In most of the US, it's open
season on Indians.)
Post by Eric Stevens
The only problem is that there are so many
facts in this area which are not yet known.
And so many of the facts are common sense. The Bering Strait theory
doesn't work in a Darwinian context, for example, unless you want to
simultaneously argue that Indians don't have the intelligence to
figure out that colder environments aren't a way to get warm, but
simultaneously argue that Indians have the technology to stay off
natural selection's radar for at least 1500 years. Which leads one to
wonder: Where did the technology come from?
MIB529
2003-07-25 06:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
Ah, one of the "We're not racist" crowd. Isn't it amazing? Folks can
call for Indians' extinction with signs like "Save a spawning walleye,
spear a pregnant squaw" and still insist they're not racist. Clue:
Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't absolve you of racism.
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-28 14:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
Ah, one of the "We're not racist" crowd. Isn't it amazing? Folks can
call for Indians' extinction with signs like "Save a spawning walleye,
Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't absolve you of racism.
Are you on some kind of medication that I should know about?
MIB529
2003-07-28 18:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
Ah, one of the "We're not racist" crowd. Isn't it amazing? Folks can
call for Indians' extinction with signs like "Save a spawning walleye,
Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't absolve you of racism.
Are you on some kind of medication that I should know about?
No, just reminding you just who's in the "We're not racist" crowd.
thomas
2003-07-28 21:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
There would seem to be a cultural disconnect in this thread. You have
one group of posters who object to the entire project of anthropology as
racist, due to past research that is now discredited by contemporary mores
and findings. This group of posters also disparage contemporary research as
racist when they disagree with the findings or speculations. Posters in
this group seem to exhibit a postmodernist epistemological orientation,
being more interested in the authorship of the research than in the
veracity of the findings.

The second group of posters distinguishes between research findings
and researchers' identities, distinguishes between outdated research
and contemporary work, and is more positivist than pomo in orientation.

Posters in both groups agree that there were and are racist
athros, and that much outdated work was biased due to the
anthro's ethnocentricity. These observations are relevant to
historians of science, but are trivially true for people engaged
in contemporary research.

Relevant today is the question of how current research is being biased
by researchers' ethnocentricity. Posters in the first group have
been less than effective in making this case. The fact that
scientists and Indians are on different sides of a court
battle over who controls remains does not by itself prove that
the findings of those scientists are biased by ethnocentrism. The
fact that some Indians feel that the project of anthropology is
tainted does not prove any specific contemporary instance
of research bias.

Given this apparent cultural disconnect between pomo critics of
anthropology on the one hand, and positivists on the other, is
there a possibility of productive communication? I doubt it.
I'm beginning to wonder why people who have so little use for
anthropology bother to read and post to a positivist anthro list
in the first place.
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-24 16:01:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Eric Stevens
2003-07-24 20:43:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
(deliberately snipped by you) that:

"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when
he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's burden."

I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that story but I
certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on the basis a statement
such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could produce a better argument.



Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-25 08:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when
he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's burden."
I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that story but I
certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on the basis a statement
such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could produce a better argument.
Eric Stevens
I could and have, Eric, with Lee Huddleston and Bernard Montellano.
The subject of whether the story of a bearded white (and I use the
term broadly, as Phillip pointed out) was an invention of the
Spaniards, or pre-existant to the arrival of Europeans has been much
discussed. And the statement that I made isn't the arguement, merely
emblematic of it. I've discussed it in terms of pre-existing
portrayals, the calendrics, the reactions of Montezuma, Cortes, the
local forms the story takes. I've speculated on the origins and the
purpose of the legend,
its etymology. It's a very popular subject which I would have thought
people are familiar with, to the point of boredom. So if you're
interested in the discussions, google. I didn't think it was
appropriate in this thread subject or necessary to go into it over an
aside. as it's not exactly a new discussion.
It sounds to me as though the complexity of the argument might extend
beyond the capacity of two brain cells. :-)
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Eric Stevens
Why do you think?
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 21:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when
he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's burden."
I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that story but I
certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on the basis a statement
such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could produce a better argument.
Eric Stevens
I could and have, Eric, with Lee Huddleston and Bernard Montellano.
The subject of whether the story of a bearded white (and I use the
term broadly, as Phillip pointed out) was an invention of the
Spaniards, or pre-existant to the arrival of Europeans has been much
discussed. And the statement that I made isn't the arguement, merely
emblematic of it. I've discussed it in terms of pre-existing
portrayals, the calendrics, the reactions of Montezuma, Cortes, the
local forms the story takes. I've speculated on the origins and the
purpose of the legend,
its etymology. It's a very popular subject which I would have thought
people are familiar with, to the point of boredom. So if you're
interested in the discussions, google. I didn't think it was
appropriate in this thread subject or necessary to go into it over an
aside. as it's not exactly a new discussion.
It sounds to me as though the complexity of the argument might extend
beyond the capacity of two brain cells. :-)
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Eric Stevens
Why do you think?
Does this mean you don't really know?




Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-25 21:06:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:14 +1200, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Eric
[SNIP]
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Aren't you making some assumptions here? And why are you implying that
the Aztecs readily accepts Moctezuma's 'surrendering his rule'?
You're right, Doug. Moctezuma didn't readily accept his rule. It was
M's ambiguity and hesitation that led to his downfall.
I have an article somewhere by a military historian who goes into some
depth into the conquest of the Aztecs. I can't find it at the moment and
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/16cen/cortez15191521.html
Right again. Not worth bothering.
What annoys me is all the myth that has built up around this that only the
skeptics bother to penetrate. By the time he reached Mexico City In
Novenber 1919 Cortez had some formidable allies. Moctezuma was taken
hostage, remember? You wouldn't know that from your comment above. When
Cortez left Mexico City the Aztecs didn't accept rule from the garrison he
left behind, they rebelled.
Due to the heavy hand that Alvarado wielded in Cortes' absence.
It was not until August 1521, after about four months of fierce fighting,
that the Spanish finally overcame the Aztecs. Almost two years after
Cortez first took Mexico City.
Doug
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-25 22:12:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:18:21 -0500, "Thomas McDonald"
If one thinks that, absent his Indian allies, Cortes could have walked
over the Aztecs, I have a bridge over some swampland that I'd like to sell
you.
Yes and the logic of doing that would be revealed in 1524.
lol. The enemy you know is frequently better than the one
you don't.
Doug Weller
2003-07-26 05:38:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:45:18 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:10:58 +0100, Doug Weller
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:14 +1200, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Eric
[SNIP]
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Aren't you making some assumptions here? And why are you implying that
the Aztecs readily accepts Moctezuma's 'surrendering his rule'?
I have an article somewhere by a military historian who goes into some
depth into the conquest of the Aztecs. I can't find it at the moment and
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/16cen/cortez15191521.html
What annoys me is all the myth that has built up around this that only the
skeptics bother to penetrate. By the time he reached Mexico City In
Novenber 1919 Cortez had some formidable allies. Moctezuma was taken
hostage, remember?
No, I didn't remember. I probably never knew. I don't make a practice
of asking questions merely as debating points.
It was a serious question. I assumed you knew more than you did. I'm
surprised you hadn't done a few checks before posting.
You wouldn't know that from your comment above. When
Cortez left Mexico City the Aztecs didn't accept rule from the garrison he
left behind, they rebelled.
It was not until August 1521, after about four months of fierce fighting,
that the Spanish finally overcame the Aztecs. Almost two years after
Cortez first took Mexico City.
THank you. That's the kind of information I was after.
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-24 21:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other scientists who
participated in this research racists?
MIB529
2003-07-25 06:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other scientists who
participated in this research racists?
In a word, yes. Sorry, but if they're not racist, they're incredibly
stupid. Geologists agree the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets
met, and thus Clovis is untenable. (In fact, the only way to do it is
either a 10,500-year maximum or a 40,000-year minimum. Radiocarbon
REPEATEDLY tells us against a 10,500-year maximum - and even against
this 18,000-year maximum - therefore, either we're going to redefine
quantum mechanics, in which case I'll x-post this to sci.physics right
now; or we'll reject the 18,000-year minimum entirely.)

What do I have to do? Build a time machine and bring one of these
early Indians here? The case for an age over 18,000 years has done
pretty much everything but that. I've also provided you with a variety
of Indian features, such as longer limbs, which couldn't survive
Siberia.

Let me guess: Geology, physics, and biology are all "Jew science",
right?
Daryl Krupa
2003-07-25 20:36:01 UTC
Permalink
***@zxmail.com (Bob Lancaster) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
For example, there is a group in a unuversity close to where I live
that is currently digging in central Alaska, looking for remants of a
civilization that has already been shown to have been there from 13k
BP to about 6k BP.
Unless cities have been found there, there was no "civilisation"
there.
You claim too much.
Except the Clovis crowd says the first
paleo-injuns got to Alaska about 12k BP.
Wrong. They claim that the first paleo-Indians got
OUT OF Alaska about 12 ka BP.
Until then, they were IN Alaska waiting for the ice-free corridor to
open up and let them migrate southeast OUT OF Alaska so that they
could GET TO Alberta about 12 ka BP.
Alaska is the northernmost part of the United States of America,
just across the Bering Strait from Russia, with a Pacific Ocean coast
and an Arctic Ocean coast, and is bordered on the east by Yukon
Territory and on the southeast by British Columbia (both part of the
Dominion of Canada).
Alberta is also part of the Dominion of Canada, but it has no sea
coasts.
Alberta is on the east side of British Columbia, east of the
Conrinental Divide.
While your confusion is understandable
(both "Alaska" and "Alberta" start with an "A" and end with and "a",
and they both have thre syllables)
you really should have a look at a map of North America before you
start
criticizing others for being ignorant.
Isn't faster than light
migration fun?
-Bob
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-25 20:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
While your confusion is understandable
(both "Alaska" and "Alberta" start with an "A" and end with and "a",
and they both have thre syllables)
you really should have a look at a map of North America before you
start
criticizing others for being ignorant.
Daryl at his finest once again. Pray tell us Daryl, when did
the arrive in AlAskA? 1 my BC?
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-26 02:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
For example, there is a group in a unuversity close to where I live
that is currently digging in central Alaska, looking for remants of a
civilization that has already been shown to have been there from 13k
BP to about 6k BP.
Unless cities have been found there, there was no "civilisation"
there.
You claim too much.
Except the Clovis crowd says the first
paleo-injuns got to Alaska about 12k BP.
Wrong. They claim that the first paleo-Indians got
OUT OF Alaska about 12 ka BP.
Until then, they were IN Alaska waiting for the ice-free corridor to
open up and let them migrate southeast OUT OF Alaska so that they
could GET TO Alberta about 12 ka BP.
Alaska is the northernmost part of the United States of America,
just across the Bering Strait from Russia, with a Pacific Ocean coast
and an Arctic Ocean coast, and is bordered on the east by Yukon
Territory and on the southeast by British Columbia (both part of the
Dominion of Canada).
Check thread
"Siberian site suggests earlier arrival for First Americans"

in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
Inger E Johansson
2003-07-26 02:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
For example, there is a group in a unuversity close to where I live
that is currently digging in central Alaska, looking for remants of a
civilization that has already been shown to have been there from 13k
BP to about 6k BP.
Unless cities have been found there, there was no "civilisation"
there.
You claim too much.
Except the Clovis crowd says the first
paleo-injuns got to Alaska about 12k BP.
Wrong. They claim that the first paleo-Indians got
OUT OF Alaska about 12 ka BP.
Until then, they were IN Alaska waiting for the ice-free corridor to
open up and let them migrate southeast OUT OF Alaska so that they
could GET TO Alberta about 12 ka BP.
Alaska is the northernmost part of the United States of America,
just across the Bering Strait from Russia, with a Pacific Ocean coast
and an Arctic Ocean coast, and is bordered on the east by Yukon
Territory and on the southeast by British Columbia (both part of the
Dominion of Canada).
Check thread
"Siberian site suggests earlier arrival for First Americans"
in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2003/07/25/MN253509
.DTL

http://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/AncientAmericaand/

Inger E
Daryl Krupa
2003-07-26 07:30:33 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
Post by MIB529
Geologists agree the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets
met, and thus Clovis is untenable. (In fact, the only way to do it is
either a 10,500-year maximum or a 40,000-year minimum.
<snip>

Dating of megafaunal remains around here shows that central Alberta
was ice-free until about 22,000 years ago, thus an "ice-free corridor"
was open for migration east of the Rockies until that time.
So, your "40,000-year minimum" should rather be a 22,000 year
minimum.

A short mention of that dating is here:

http://www.pma.edmonton.ab.ca/natural/paleo/intro.htm

Daryl Krupa
MIB529
2003-07-26 18:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by MIB529
Geologists agree the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets
met, and thus Clovis is untenable. (In fact, the only way to do it is
either a 10,500-year maximum or a 40,000-year minimum.
<snip>
Dating of megafaunal remains around here shows that central Alberta
was ice-free until about 22,000 years ago, thus an "ice-free corridor"
was open for migration east of the Rockies until that time.
So, your "40,000-year minimum" should rather be a 22,000 year
minimum.
http://www.pma.edmonton.ab.ca/natural/paleo/intro.htm
Thanks. Still, it cleans the molecular clock. <G>
MIB529
2003-07-25 02:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 02:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?



Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-25 08:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
Eric Stevens
Probably more human than he turned out to be...and certainly more
human than the Aztecs appeared to Cortez.
Duncan
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 21:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow tail?
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/




Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-26 05:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow tail?
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/
Eric Stevens
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?

Duncan Craig
Eric Stevens
2003-07-26 05:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow tail?
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/
Eric Stevens
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.

I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.




Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
2003-07-26 08:42:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:24:14 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Thomas McDonald
wrote:
[SNIP]
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
There were 5 letters in all I believe, or rather we have 5 letters.
http://www.mexica.ws/CORTES%20IN%20HIS%20OWN%20WORDS.htm

It's important to remember that Cortez had disobeyed Velazquez, Governor
of Cuba,, and had to justify that disobedience.

I posted this in April 2000:
Some recent posts:

Subject: Re: Cortez and Montezuma
From: "Hades" <***@please.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.mexican, soc.culture.native,
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, alt.native
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 21:44:56 -0700

Moctezuma decided on the most disastrous course of all: he attempted to
bribe Cortés into leaving Mexico by sending embassies laden down with
rich gifts. "This was to reveal, at once, both his wealth and his
weakness," wrote William H. Prescott, celebrated l9th century historian
of the Conquest.

Cortés was as bold as Moctezuma was indecisive. He was the original man
who won't take no for an answer. When Moctezuma's envoys told him the
emperor was not available for an audience, Cortés brashly replied that
he couldn't leave Mexico before coming to Tenochtitlán to pay his
respects in person. Then, in an act of supreme daring (or rashness, if
one prefers), he had all his ships burned save one that would return to
Spain to report developments to King Charles V.

Possibly believing that only supernatural beings could be endowed with
such supernatural gall, Moctezuma allowed Cortés to enter Tenochtitlán
on November 12, 1519. What Cortés saw made him very nervous. With a
population of over 300,000, the Aztec capital was larger than any city
in Europe. Even with Spanish cannon and cavalry, his small force could
be wiped out by such overwhelming odds.

Moctezuma's next irresolute mistake paved the way for what has been
describe as one of the most daring moves in the annals of history. The
Aztec emperor allowed Cortés and a few trusted aides into the imperial
palace -- and they promptly placed him under arrest. The flimsy excuse
given was that Moctezuma had ordered a coastal tribe to attack the
Spanish garrison at Veracruz.

The Spaniards now had a valuable hostage. Furthermore, this act of
degradation appears to have broken Moctezuma's spirit. Having forfeited
the respect of his people, the emperor spent the pathetic last months of
his life trying to ingratiate himself with his captors -- playing ball
games with them in the imperial gardens and lavishing gifts on the men
who had so degraded him. He accepted Christianity and
meekly swore allegiance to Charles V.

The sad drama ended in April 1520. Cortés had just returned from
defeating a
rival Spanish force at Veracruz sent by the envious governor of Cuba. In
his absence, Pedro de Alvarado -- the most brutal of the conquistadores
-- slaughtered 3,400 Aztecs because he mistook a spirited religious
ceremony for an outbreak of rebellion. The furious population of
Tenochtitlán rose massively against the Spaniards, who were barricaded
inside the imperial palace. They sent the docile Moctezuma to calm his
subjects but he was greeted with jeers and stones. One projectile
knocked him unconscious and he was carried downstairs by attendants.
Though he didn't appear to be seriously hurt, he died within two weeks -
undoubtedly of a broken heart.

And Cuahutemoc, the last Aztec emperor was tortured by the spaniards to
reveal the hiding place of Moctezuma Tresure, they burned his feet and
since he didn't talk, he was hanged.

And:

Subject: Re: From the horse's mouth: Cortez [sic] and Montezuma [sic]
From: "Erik A. Mattila" <***@tomatoweb.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.mexican, soc.culture.native,
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, alt.native
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 20:09:43 GMT

Personally, I think the history of the conquest of Mexico is a great
example of how myth is born. But there is a lot of source material -
yet
it takes some critical reading to sort out and reinterpret the lies that
were popular in 1520, on the part of the Indians as well as the
Spaniards. "Lies?" Perhaps too harsh a term - it's just that history
always serves the interest of the present.

Let's take the idea of Quetzalcoatl's return, which has a lot of
interesting in pop-history. In one of the letter's of Hernan Cortés he
writes of his first meeting with "The Great Speaker," Motecuhzoma
Xocoyotzin:

"For a long time we have known from the writings of our ancestors that
neither I [Moctezuma], nor any of those who dwell in this land, are
natives of it, but foreigners who came from very distant parts; and
likewise we know that a chieftain, of whom they were all vassals,
brought our people to this region. And he
returned to his native land and after many years came again, by which
time all those who had remained were married to native women and had
built villages and
raised children. And when he wished to lead them away again they would
not go nor even admit
him as their chief, and so he departed. And we have always held that
those who descended from him would come and conquer this land and take
us as their vassals. So because of the place from which you claim to
come, namely, from where the sun rises, and the things you tell us of
the great lord or king who sent you here, we believe and are certain
that he is our natural lord, especially as you say that he has known of
us for some time. So be assured that we shall obey you and hold you as our
lord in place of that great sovereign of whom you speak; and in this there
shall be no offense or betrayal whatsoever. I know full well of all that
has happened to you from Puntunchan to here, and I also know how those
of Cempoal and Tascalteca have told you much evil of me; believe only
what you see with your eyes, for those are my enemies, and some were my
vassals, and have rebelled against me at your coming and said those things
to gain favor with you. I also know that they have told you the walls of
my houses are, made of gold, and that the floor mats in my rooms and other
things in my household are
likewise of gold, and that I was, and claimed to be, a
god; and many other things besides. The houses as you see are of stone
and lime and clay."

There's really no reference here to Quetzalcoatl, either in a historical
or mythological aspect. However, the 'chieftan' that Motecuhzoma refers
to is more likely to be Mecitli, a legend by 1519 among the Tenochas,
who was the great chief during the the years of wandering of these
people.
Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin was a devotee of Quetzalcoatl and other things
Toltec, which got him into some trouble with his people because they
thought he was ignoring their unique Mexica god, Huitzilpotchli. But
Cortés goes on to write:

"Then he raised his clothes and showed me his body, saying, as he
grasped his arms and trunk with his hands, "See that I am of flesh and
blood like you and all other men, and I am mortal and substantial. See how
they have lied to you? It is true that I have some pieces of gold left to
me by my ancestors; anything I might have shall be given to you whenever
you ask. Now I shall go to other houses where I live, but here you shall
be provided with all that you and your people require, and you shall
receive no hurt, for you are in your own land and your own house."

This is a very interesting issue because Motecuhzoma is documented to
have been engaged in a very overt movement, during the years of his
reign, to establish the 'divinity' of the kings (Great Speakers) of
Tenochitlan, and on a whim he had his entire staff killed because these
people regarded the previous Great Speakers as mortals. A very good
account of the Mixica royal lineage can be found here:
http://northcoast.com/~spdtom/a-rul.html#RULERS

Anyway, it's pretty easy to start to unravel the roots of the
Quetzalcoatl story with a little engagement in history. The story is
constructed out of several important themes. One, from Spain, is of
course the messianic belief of Christ's return. Whether or not there
are native counterparts is problematical. When you look at the context in
which early colonial ethnography was written, native informants who wrote
in Nahua but who had also been converted the Chiristianity, there is
ample cause to suspect that the older stories have been redefined along
the lines of Christian themes. One the other hand, there is a possiblity
of a messianic them ocurring in pre-columbian thought, as it is after all
part of the mythological archetype of the 'myth of the eternal return.'

As for La Malinche, you have to remember that the Nahuatl word
"malinche" means 'military captain' which was applied to Cortés. "La
Malinche" means, more or less, "the Captain's woman." There's little
doubt that Malintzin (the 'tzin' is curiously a honorific, usually
reservered for political caciques) was a slave. The story is well known
and documented in the writings of Bernal Diaz, who took Dona Marina to
visit her mother, who had put the woman into slavery years prior to the
meeting.

But to say that Cortés couldn't have succeeded without her is pushing it
a bit, I think. During the reign of the Otter (Ahuitzotl, 1468-1502) the
political power of the Mexican states pushed throught Oaxaca to the
Pacific Coast of Guatemala, and there were many people in Southern
Mexico who were bilingual, speaking Nahua as well as their native tongue,
or even five or six languages.

Erik Mattila
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-26 14:58:27 UTC
Permalink
.'
Post by Doug Weller
As for La Malinche, you have to remember that the Nahuatl word
"malinche" means 'military captain' which was applied to Cortés. "La
Malinche" means, more or less, "the Captain's woman." There's little
doubt that Malintzin (the 'tzin' is curiously a honorific, usually
reservered for political caciques) was a slave. The story is well known
and documented in the writings of Bernal Diaz, who took Dona Marina to
visit her mother, who had put the woman into slavery years prior to the
meeting.
This is from *Between two Worlds. Interpreters, Guides ands Survivors*
by Frances Karttunen (the author of *An analytical Dictionary of
Nahuatl*) p .5-6

"... the woman destined to Aguilar's professional colleague [BOM
Malinche] ws given the baptismal name "Marina." In the speech of
Nahuatl-speaking Indians her new name took the form "Malintzin" but for
her Spanish-speaking contemporaries, she was "Dona Marina."...
"Malintzin" does not seem much like "Marina," but it makes sense in
terms of how Nahuatl speakers borrowed Spanish words into their own
language. nahuatl replaces Spanish (r) with (l) and "Marina" becomes
"Malina". to this is added an ending -tzin, which expresses respect and
honor in much the same way as Spanish Dona does when it is put in front
of the name. Thus, the equivalent of "Dona marina" is Malina-tzin, and
losing a volwel becomes "Malintzin."
Spanish borrowed "Malintzin" back from Nahuatl. Just as Nahuatl speakers
could not pronounce Spanish(l), Spanish speakers coould not pronounce
Nahuatl (tz) and changed it to (ch). They didn't hear the
often-whispered Nahuatl (n) at the end of the word either, and the
result was "Malinche."


There a number of words for "captain" in Nahuatl-- tlacateccatl,
yaotachcauh, yaotequihua, yyaoquizca, teachcauht- but malinche is not a
nahuatl word.

Bernard
Post by Doug Weller
But to say that Cortés couldn't have succeeded without her is pushing it
a bit, I think. During the reign of the Otter (Ahuitzotl, 1468-1502) the
political power of the Mexican states pushed throught Oaxaca to the
Pacific Coast of Guatemala, and there were many people in Southern
Mexico who were bilingual, speaking Nahua as well as their native tongue,
or even five or six languages.
Erik Mattila
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
res6l2wx
2003-07-26 19:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Weller
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:24:14 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Thomas McDonald
Moctezuma decided on the most disastrous course of all: he attempted to
bribe Cortés into leaving Mexico by sending embassies laden down with
rich gifts. "This was to reveal, at once, both his wealth and his
weakness," wrote William H. Prescott, celebrated l9th century historian
of the Conquest.
Moctezuma's next irresolute mistake paved the way for what has been
describe as one of the most daring moves in the annals of history. The
Aztec emperor allowed Cortés and a few trusted aides into the imperial
palace -- and they promptly placed him under arrest
Bias of an author is always interesting and choice of words does reveal
bias. One could equally well say, "Cortes promptly violated the laws of
hospitality by kidnapping Moctezuma." We cannot too much admire the choice
of "placing him under arrest", for high crimes and misdemeanours, no doubt.
Cheers
John GW
Doug Weller
2003-07-26 19:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by res6l2wx
Post by Doug Weller
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:24:14 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Thomas McDonald
Moctezuma decided on the most disastrous course of all: he attempted to
bribe Cortés into leaving Mexico by sending embassies laden down with
rich gifts. "This was to reveal, at once, both his wealth and his
weakness," wrote William H. Prescott, celebrated l9th century historian
of the Conquest.
Moctezuma's next irresolute mistake paved the way for what has been
describe as one of the most daring moves in the annals of history. The
Aztec emperor allowed Cortés and a few trusted aides into the imperial
palace -- and they promptly placed him under arrest
Bias of an author is always interesting and choice of words does reveal
bias. One could equally well say, "Cortes promptly violated the laws of
hospitality by kidnapping Moctezuma." We cannot too much admire the choice
of "placing him under arrest", for high crimes and misdemeanours, no doubt.
I've also seen 'held him hostage' which is much closer to what happened.

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Eric Stevens
2003-07-26 09:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
suggested?
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit
that folks
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth
about white
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians
with
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white
gods in places
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow
tail?
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/
Eric Stevens
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.
I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.
Eric,
Best not get too impressed ahead of your own research. For a start,
look up (in a real reference) Huitzilopoctli. Also known as "Hummingbird on
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover of
hearts and blood. Also the war god. If he's an incarnation of
Quetzalcoatl, it would be Q's dark side.
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
Don't worry too much. Once I decide to hunt down a subject I do it
fairly thoroughly. Amazon has done quite well out of my curiousity.
:-)



Eric Stevens
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-26 14:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
suggested?
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit
that folks
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth
about white
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians
with
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white
gods in places
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow
tail?
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/
Eric Stevens
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.
I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.
Eric,
Best not get too impressed ahead of your own research. For a start,
look up (in a real reference) Huitzilopoctli. Also known as "Hummingbird on
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover of
hearts and blood. Also the war god. If he's an incarnation of
Quetzalcoatl, it would be Q's dark side.
The Mexica are more complicated than that. Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca
were both creator gods and seen in a way as opposites. Myths about Tula
set them up as rivals and the myth is that Tezcatlipoca won and
Quetzalcoatldissapeared to the East --- but you have been discussing
this already. Evidence of this dichotomy is the dual system of
education. Commoner males were educated in the telpochcalli- whose
patron was Tezcatlipoca representing war and warriors; nobles and the
future priests were educated in the calmecac-- whose patron was
Quetzalcoatl theywere trained in literature, astrology, writing, etc.
They also got military training. Thus, the dichotomy was
Tezcatlipoca/Quetzalcoatl. Huitzilopochtli was the patron of the Mexica
and not as widely revered as the previous two. All the Aztec gods were
involved in sacrifice-- even Quetzalcoatl-- it was more a matter of
degree.
Bernard
Post by Gisele Horvat
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
Tom McDonald
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Duncan Craig
2003-07-26 18:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.
I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.
Eric,
Best not get too impressed ahead of your own research.
Definitely.


For a start,
Post by Gisele Horvat
look up (in a real reference) Huitzilopoctli. Also known as "Hummingbird on
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover of
hearts and blood. Also the war god. If he's an incarnation of
Quetzalcoatl, it would be Q's dark side.
Thus Montezumas confusion and indecisiveness; which Q was this? The
one who landed on January tenth, 478ad who stopped human sacrifice
(for a while), and ushered in an era of unprecedented cultural
influence for Teotihuacan? or the warlord who was the source of
another layering of myth in 999ad?
Post by Gisele Horvat
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
A sober look? And no, of course he wasn't a disinterested observer,
but he sure as hell wouldn't report falsehoods back to the king for
the sake of some future historians.
Post by Gisele Horvat
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
Tom McDonald
...and watergate, too. Don't forget that fiasco.

Duncan Craig
Doug Weller
2003-07-26 18:57:30 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Jul 2003 11:43:38 -0700, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Duncan Craig
Post by Duncan Craig
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
A sober look? And no, of course he wasn't a disinterested observer,
but he sure as hell wouldn't report falsehoods back to the king for
the sake of some future historians.
No, he'd report them back for his sake.

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Thomas McDonald
2003-07-26 19:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.
I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.
Eric,
Best not get too impressed ahead of your own research.
Definitely.
For a start,
Post by Gisele Horvat
look up (in a real reference) Huitzilopoctli. Also known as
"Hummingbird on
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Gisele Horvat
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover of
hearts and blood. Also the war god. If he's an incarnation of
Quetzalcoatl, it would be Q's dark side.
Thus Montezumas confusion and indecisiveness; which Q was this? The
one who landed on January tenth, 478ad who stopped human sacrifice
(for a while), and ushered in an era of unprecedented cultural
influence for Teotihuacan? or the warlord who was the source of
another layering of myth in 999ad?
Post by Gisele Horvat
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
A sober look? And no, of course he wasn't a disinterested observer,
but he sure as hell wouldn't report falsehoods back to the king for
the sake of some future historians.
Duncan,

I don't pretend to know a lot about this issue, but I do know that
Cortes was a contentious man, a self-promoter, willing to break many rules
to get what he wanted, and interested in getting as much personal power as
he could in the New World. While the question as to whether he'd report
deliberate lies to his king is open in my mind, it would not be out of
character for Cortes to distort the truth and to claim for himself things
that were not, strictly speaking, his. This in addition of course to the
natural misreadings of another, wildly different, culture; which misreadings
I submit Cortes might well have shaded for his own benefit.
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Gisele Horvat
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
Tom McDonald
...and watergate, too. Don't forget that fiasco.
1. My reference to the AVM stone was directed to Eric, and I'm sure he
fully understood my meaning;

2. Watergate is an example of excellent and thorough verification of the
evidence, at least as regards the New York Times' WoodStein's coverage. The
AVM's initial coverage was a fiasco at the start, and was only a non-fiasco
after the forgers/pranksters themselves came forward.

Tom McDonald
tkavanagh
2003-07-26 21:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Thomas McDonald wrote:
<snip>
Post by Thomas McDonald
the New York Times' WoodStein's coverage.
Woodward and Bernstein wrote (and Bob Woodward still does) for the
Washington Post. :-)

tk
Thomas McDonald
2003-07-26 22:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Thomas McDonald
the New York Times' WoodStein's coverage.
Woodward and Bernstein wrote (and Bob Woodward still does) for the
Washington Post. :-)
tk
tk,

Yup. I caught the error myself, right after you pointed it out to me
:-).

Tom McDonald
Duncan Craig
2003-07-27 00:59:12 UTC
Permalink
"Thomas McDonald" <***@wwt
snipped
Post by Thomas McDonald
Duncan,
I don't pretend to know a lot about this issue, but I do know that
Cortes was a contentious man, a self-promoter, willing to break many rules
to get what he wanted, and interested in getting as much personal power as
he could in the New World. While the question as to whether he'd report
deliberate lies to his king is open in my mind, it would not be out of
character for Cortes to distort the truth and to claim for himself things
that were not, strictly speaking, his. This in addition of course to the
natural misreadings of another, wildly different, culture; which misreadings
I submit Cortes might well have shaded for his own benefit.
Yes, that's true.
Post by Thomas McDonald
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Gisele Horvat
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
Tom McDonald
...and watergate, too. Don't forget that fiasco.
1. My reference to the AVM stone was directed to Eric, and I'm sure he
fully understood my meaning;
2. Watergate is an example of excellent and thorough verification of the
evidence, at least as regards the New York Times' WoodStein's coverage. The
AVM's initial coverage was a fiasco at the start, and was only a non-fiasco
after the forgers/pranksters themselves came forward.
Tom McDonald
I apologize for my caustic defensiveness, Thomas.

Duncan
Thomas McDonald
2003-07-27 03:41:31 UTC
Permalink
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
Duncan,

Reference, please. The dates you refer to seem very late for Teotihuacan
as anything other than a place of pilgrimage; Tula would have been more
relevant for most purposes.

Tom McDonald
Duncan Craig
2003-07-27 12:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
Duncan,
Reference, please. The dates you refer to seem very late for Teotihuacan
as anything other than a place of pilgrimage; Tula would have been more
relevant for most purposes.
Tom McDonald
Which date do you mean? I mentioned three dates. ..478, 999, and 1519.
My references would be
Skyglobe software,
Distant Suns fourth edition astronomy software,
Avenis,"Empires of Time",
David Pankeniers essay, The Cosmo-political Significance of the
Mandate of Heaven"
These three dates marked the coming of Quetzalcoatls and are called
four-sky-serpent, Kan-Ka'an-chan homonyms in yucatec. Use an
archaeo-astronomy program and the alignment of the visible planets
occurs on these dates. Thats my reference, Thomas, the night sky. The
four planet alignment forms the four jade bead glyph that means
rulership. Do you believe it was simply lucky that Cortes
landed on the One Reed year? Luckier still that he landed when the
four-sky-serpent occurred. He wouldn't know anything about the
mesoamerican calendar, would he? Mmmm. But he did land on Maudy
thursday before Good friday., how fortuitous that he landed on the
only Christian holiday that is based on the luner calendar...and could
be synchronized with other calendars. Also lucky that he went to
Salmanaca University where the teacher was a fellow by the name of
Abraham Zacutas whos special achievement was the charting of a Venus
calendar. He wasn't merely lucky landing on a One Reed year. He hit
the jackpot by landing on the culmination of the venus greatcycle,
once every 519 years. Is it any wonder that Montezuma was nervous? The
planets lining up and bearded strangers landing at Panuco. But what
the hell do I know? Pull up the sky for the morning ofjanuary
10, 478 ad. It's not new age, or astrology, or mystical...it is,
however, a comprehensively designed social structure based on the
movements of heavenly bodies. References? No, I don't have much.

Duncan Craig
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-28 16:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
Duncan,
Reference, please. The dates you refer to seem very late for Teotihuacan
as anything other than a place of pilgrimage; Tula would have been more
relevant for most purposes.
Tom McDonald
Which date do you mean? I mentioned three dates. ..478, 999, and 1519.
My references would be
Skyglobe software,
Distant Suns fourth edition astronomy software,
Avenis,"Empires of Time",
David Pankeniers essay, The Cosmo-political Significance of the
Mandate of Heaven"
These three dates marked the coming of Quetzalcoatls and are called
four-sky-serpent, Kan-Ka'an-chan homonyms in yucatec. Use an
archaeo-astronomy program and the alignment of the visible planets
occurs on these dates. Thats my reference, Thomas, the night sky. The
four planet alignment forms the four jade bead glyph that means
rulership. Do you believe it was simply lucky that Cortes
landed on the One Reed year? Luckier still that he landed when the
four-sky-serpent occurred. He wouldn't know anything about the
mesoamerican calendar, would he? Mmmm. But he did land on Maudy
thursday before Good friday., how fortuitous that he landed on the
only Christian holiday that is based on the luner calendar...and could
be synchronized with other calendars. Also lucky that he went to
Salmanaca University where the teacher was a fellow by the name of
Abraham Zacutas whos special achievement was the charting of a Venus
calendar. He wasn't merely lucky landing on a One Reed year. He hit
the jackpot by landing on the culmination of the venus greatcycle,
once every 519 years. Is it any wonder that Montezuma was nervous? The
planets lining up and bearded strangers landing at Panuco. But what
the hell do I know? Pull up the sky for the morning ofjanuary
10, 478 ad. It's not new age, or astrology, or mystical...it is,
however, a comprehensively designed social structure based on the
movements of heavenly bodies. References? No, I don't have much.
Duncan Craig
come on, the Aztecs did not have any such knowledge of astronomy. Aveni,
who would know , did not say this -- reference please.
Bernard
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Duncan Craig
2003-07-29 02:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
Duncan,
Reference, please. The dates you refer to seem very late for Teotihuacan
as anything other than a place of pilgrimage; Tula would have been more
relevant for most purposes.
Tom McDonald
Which date do you mean? I mentioned three dates. ..478, 999, and 1519.
My references would be
Skyglobe software,
Distant Suns fourth edition astronomy software,
Avenis,"Empires of Time",
David Pankeniers essay, The Cosmo-political Significance of the
Mandate of Heaven"
These three dates marked the coming of Quetzalcoatls and are called
four-sky-serpent, Kan-Ka'an-chan homonyms in yucatec. Use an
archaeo-astronomy program and the alignment of the visible planets
occurs on these dates. Thats my reference, Thomas, the night sky. The
four planet alignment forms the four jade bead glyph that means
rulership. Do you believe it was simply lucky that Cortes
landed on the One Reed year? Luckier still that he landed when the
four-sky-serpent occurred. He wouldn't know anything about the
mesoamerican calendar, would he? Mmmm. But he did land on Maudy
thursday before Good friday., how fortuitous that he landed on the
only Christian holiday that is based on the luner calendar...and could
be synchronized with other calendars. Also lucky that he went to
Salmanaca University where the teacher was a fellow by the name of
Abraham Zacutas whos special achievement was the charting of a Venus
calendar. He wasn't merely lucky landing on a One Reed year. He hit
the jackpot by landing on the culmination of the venus greatcycle,
once every 519 years. Is it any wonder that Montezuma was nervous? The
planets lining up and bearded strangers landing at Panuco. But what
the hell do I know? Pull up the sky for the morning ofjanuary
10, 478 ad. It's not new age, or astrology, or mystical...it is,
however, a comprehensively designed social structure based on the
movements of heavenly bodies. References? No, I don't have much.
Duncan Craig
come on, the Aztecs did not have any such knowledge of astronomy. Aveni,
who would know , did not say this -- reference please.
Bernard
Aveni, Empires of Time: Calendars, Clocks & Cultures Kodansha America,
Inc. New York 1995 P. 253-277.

Duncan
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-28 16:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Where exactly is the myth of Quetzalcoatl leading Teotihucan to a period
of great prosperity written?
I would appreciatea reference
Bernard
I'd be happy to give you references and explain my reasoning. But I'd
Your article, "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's
Afrocentricity and the Olmecs" published in Current Anthropology,
included a review or comment by Michael Coe in support of your
position.
"As someone who has worked many decades with the pre-classic or
formative cultures of Mesoamerica and spent three field seasons
excavating the great Olmec culture of San Lorenzo, I would like to
state unequivically that there is nothing in these Olmec sites that
looks African, Chinese, European or Near Eastern."
I asked if there was some other criteria he was using to make that
dogmatic statement, because if it was an aesthetic one, it was
untenable in light of the work of Paul Chou, Miguel Corravubias,
Constance Irwin, Gordon Eckholm, Hugh Honour and anyone who has seen
Olmec art. Persons with no background in art or archaeology will often
comment that the Olmec heads 'look' just like OJ Simpson, or the Olmec
baby figures 'look' Chinese. Are we to suppose that the bearded figure
commonly called 'Uncle Sam' bears no resemblence to a European?
Am I to assume that the dean of Mesoamerican archaeology is
emphatically and "unequivically" denying any outside influence upon
the Olmec? That seems to be
Coes and your position. Unequivically. But how do I reconcile this
with Coe's statement made in the fifth edition of "The Maya", made
just ten years earlier when discussing Tolstoys exaustive study of
bark paper manufacturing around the Pacific basin.
"It is his well-founded conclusion that this technology, known
in ancient China, Southeast Asia and Indonesia, as well as
Mesoamerica, was diffused from eastern Indonesia to Mesoamerica at a
very early date. The main use of such paper in Mesoamerica was in the
production of screen fold books to record ritual, calendrical, and
astronomical information. It is not unreasonable to suppose that it
was through the medium of such books, which are still in use by
Indonesian people like the Batak, that an intellectual exchange took
place. This by no means implies that the Maya-or any other
Mesoamerican civilization-were merely derivitive from Old World
prototypes. What it does suggest is that at a few times in their early
history, the Maya may have been receptive to some important ideas
originating in the Eastern Hemisphere." Page 47.
So did Coe change and harden his opinion in the past ten years? Or
is he engaging in a bit of sophistry? Nothing "looks" Chinese, but
some important ideas came from Asia.
And finally, Bernard,... what good are any references I could show to
track the development of my ideas, when the top scholars in the field
are filled with such ambiguities?
Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
1) you are changing the subject.
2) I'm not asking you for someone's opinon abut the Quetzalcoatl legend,
I want some primary source-- Sahagun, or the Codice Chimalpopoca- that
states that they (the Aztecs) believed that Quetzalcoatl ruled
Teotihuacan and led itto greatness.

3) If you have problems with Coe, write him direct. His e-mail can be
obtained through Yale university. But, the remark you quote refers to
the Maya=- It in no way contradicts Coe's ideas about the Olmec.
Bernard
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Duncan Craig
2003-07-29 02:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Where exactly is the myth of Quetzalcoatl leading Teotihucan to a period
of great prosperity written?
I would appreciatea reference
Bernard
I'd be happy to give you references and explain my reasoning. But I'd
Your article, "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's
Afrocentricity and the Olmecs" published in Current Anthropology,
included a review or comment by Michael Coe in support of your
position.
"As someone who has worked many decades with the pre-classic or
formative cultures of Mesoamerica and spent three field seasons
excavating the great Olmec culture of San Lorenzo, I would like to
state unequivically that there is nothing in these Olmec sites that
looks African, Chinese, European or Near Eastern."
I asked if there was some other criteria he was using to make that
dogmatic statement, because if it was an aesthetic one, it was
untenable in light of the work of Paul Chou, Miguel Corravubias,
Constance Irwin, Gordon Eckholm, Hugh Honour and anyone who has seen
Olmec art. Persons with no background in art or archaeology will often
comment that the Olmec heads 'look' just like OJ Simpson, or the Olmec
baby figures 'look' Chinese. Are we to suppose that the bearded figure
commonly called 'Uncle Sam' bears no resemblence to a European?
Am I to assume that the dean of Mesoamerican archaeology is
emphatically and "unequivically" denying any outside influence upon
the Olmec? That seems to be
Coes and your position. Unequivically. But how do I reconcile this
with Coe's statement made in the fifth edition of "The Maya", made
just ten years earlier when discussing Tolstoys exaustive study of
bark paper manufacturing around the Pacific basin.
"It is his well-founded conclusion that this technology, known
in ancient China, Southeast Asia and Indonesia, as well as
Mesoamerica, was diffused from eastern Indonesia to Mesoamerica at a
very early date. The main use of such paper in Mesoamerica was in the
production of screen fold books to record ritual, calendrical, and
astronomical information. It is not unreasonable to suppose that it
was through the medium of such books, which are still in use by
Indonesian people like the Batak, that an intellectual exchange took
place. This by no means implies that the Maya-or any other
Mesoamerican civilization-were merely derivitive from Old World
prototypes. What it does suggest is that at a few times in their early
history, the Maya may have been receptive to some important ideas
originating in the Eastern Hemisphere." Page 47.
So did Coe change and harden his opinion in the past ten years? Or
is he engaging in a bit of sophistry? Nothing "looks" Chinese, but
some important ideas came from Asia.
And finally, Bernard,... what good are any references I could show to
track the development of my ideas, when the top scholars in the field
are filled with such ambiguities?
Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
1) you are changing the subject.
No, I asked you a question that you ignored the first time. I believe
that it is you that changed the subject.
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2) I'm not asking you for someone's opinon abut the Quetzalcoatl legend,
I want some primary source-- Sahagun, or the Codice Chimalpopoca- that
states that they (the Aztecs) believed that Quetzalcoatl ruled
Teotihuacan and led itto greatness.
I never said that the Aztecs believed Q ruled Teotihuacan and led it
to greatness. That opinion is my own which as you stated, doesn't
interest you.
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
3) If you have problems with Coe, write him direct. His e-mail can be
obtained through Yale university. But,
I will.


the remark you quote refers to
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
the Maya=- It in no way contradicts Coe's ideas about the Olmec.
And one of things I'll ask him is when he believes these "important
ideas from the Eastern hemisphere" entered into Maya culture. I'd be
interested in what the ideas were that weren't present in the Olmec
cosmology.

Duncan
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Bernard
Seppo Renfors
2003-07-28 13:16:21 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.
I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.
Eric,
Best not get too impressed ahead of your own research. For a start,
look up (in a real reference) Huitzilopoctli. Also known as "Hummingbird on
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover of
hearts and blood. Also the war god. If he's an incarnation of
Quetzalcoatl, it would be Q's dark side.
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
As I have heard the story, Duncan's version stand up well indeed. I do
think his statement on Cortes is quite believable. He is far from
alone in those views - and quite frankly, I though they were normal
mainstream views! I'm surprised to see you poo-pooing them.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Tezcatli.asp
Post by Gisele Horvat
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
...and remember the KRS... don't reject things out of hand because you
don't like the story.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas McDonald
2003-07-28 18:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.
I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.
Eric,
Best not get too impressed ahead of your own research. For a start,
look up (in a real reference) Huitzilopoctli. Also known as
"Hummingbird on
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover of
hearts and blood. Also the war god. If he's an incarnation of
Quetzalcoatl, it would be Q's dark side.
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
As I have heard the story, Duncan's version stand up well indeed. I do
think his statement on Cortes is quite believable. He is far from
alone in those views - and quite frankly, I though they were normal
mainstream views! I'm surprised to see you poo-pooing them.
Seppo,

Not poo-pooing them; merely suggesting that Eric not get ahead of
himself.

The references regarding Mixtec mythology and history vary greatly in
quality, and over time. For instance, one reference I have, Frances F.
Berdan, _The Aztecs of Central Mexico: An Imperial Society_, 1982, ISBN #
0-03-055736-4, says that their creator gods were Ometecutli (male) and
Omecihuatl; whose four sons were:

the Red Tezcatlipoca (Xipe Totec);

the Black Tezcatlipoca (Tezcatlipoca):

Quetzalcoatl ("presumably the White Tezcatlipoca");

and the Blue Tezcatlipoca (Huitzilopochtli, or Hummingbird on the Left).

As you can see, there is an opportunity for confusion here as to which
"Tezcatlipoca" one is referring to; although I'd imagine that the name,
without modifier, would probably relate to the Black Tezcatlipoca. This is
most likely a later addition to Mixtec mythology; Huitzilopochtli seems to
have been their main god before and during their migration.

As Duncan noted, Q as a god was confused, conflated or associated with
at least one mortal man, Q. Topiltzin of Tula (capitol of the Toltecs, ca.
900-1200 AD). In another post, however, Duncan said that there was a key
association with Teotihuacan (fl. ca. 100 BC-700 AD), and speicifically
_not_ Tula. I am also not sure how he arrived at 999 AD as the accession
date for Q. Topiltzin. Duncan associates that year with an alignment
prominently including Venus, which was associated with Q; but I don't know
if there is written evidence of this. Duncan also associates another human
bearer of the Q name with Venus, and says that he outlawed human sacrifice
in 478 AD. Again, I haven't seen the evidence that supports that specific
year, other than the planetary alignments; and would like to before I accept
it as fact.

I only really took specific issue with Duncan's statement that Cortes
wouldn't concoct a story to his King; and that was based on my understanding
of Cortes' history and character, not specific knowledge of the letter in
question.
Post by Seppo Renfors
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Tezcatli.asp
Post by Gisele Horvat
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
...and remember the KRS... don't reject things out of hand because you
don't like the story.
Not sure what you mean here. Of course it's not proper to reject things
because you don't like the story. I haven't WRT KRS; and I haven't WRT
Duncan's post. My only purpose in posting what I did was to caution Eric
against taking what Duncan wrote as gospel without checking it out for
himself. I assume you'd agree with that?

Tom McDonald
Post by Seppo Renfors
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
2003-07-28 20:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas McDonald
Seppo,
Not poo-pooing them; merely suggesting that Eric not get ahead of
himself.
Me?

I'm not 'getting' anywhere. I've been on the outside of this, reading,
for some time. I find the whole thing fascinating.



Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
2003-07-28 13:07:11 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by Duncan Craig
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?
Much of this is as I have heard the story. They were masters at
astronomy and partly that is was said to be the cause of Montezuma not
doing more to drive off the Spanish.

The Year 560 something has some bearing on this story, being the
beginning, I think - as does precession. The milky way has to rise in
a certain place as that is the bridge between the living and the dead
- the path to the Gods. It has a cycle of some 800 years IIRC. It was
known for some time that this alignment would to be broken at a
particular time - Montezuma's time. It was supposed to signal the end
of their civilization. There is an American who has done extensive
work on the ancient legends, and pieced together the story - found the
connections to the stars, etc. I can't recall his name.

I do recall seeing a series on this on TV - this had an ancient rock
carving of a man with a beard as the "original" god/person that
brought peace to the various nations - that had been at war for many
hundreds of years previously - 800 years to be precise - or so it was
said. I have a mental picture of this carving being quite enormous on
a vertical cliff face. I cannot recall where it was, not what they
called the being depicted. It was posed as evidence of someone from
the old world having had contact, and that was because of the beard
and physical features of the carved impression.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
pete
2003-07-28 05:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden.
The conjecture that they were gods, was Mexican in origin.
They had prophecies of bearded gods.
The whites never claimed to be gods.
When Cortez destroyed the idols and
fixed up the alters catholic style,
he made it very plain that if the Mexicans were going to worship
anything, it would only be through either Jesus or Mary.

All of that is according to Bernal Diaz, who was there at the time.
--
pete
deowll
2003-07-23 21:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most artifacts other
than the points are sort of generic. I've never seen something I could call
a Clovis point from Asia. Unless you know something I don't I think the
points developed in North America. I don't question a linkage between North
Easter Asian culture and Native American culture.

I would bet that the expansion took place before the displacement or at
least the people displaced aren't the ones that moved when the group
expanded. In most cases the ones dispaced die with few if any descendents
while some may be absorbed. Large bodies of people did move around after the
mesolithic but before that is seems to have been one small group moving then
budding off another group at the expense of the neighbors and so on.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
Native americans did not have a common origins in south
central asia. They have many points of origin from
melanesians that came up through Japan in the south to
diplaced WEA/ME that came up from the south west to siberia.
To mongols that came from siberia proper . . . . .
Post by Diarmid Logan
But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.
"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."
Genes not found in a living populations aren't found in a living population
and taking a trip won't help. Genes that once were but have no living owners
are gone. Sometime you might get lucky and find a few but as you have
pointed out unless they are frozen somewhere in the tundra the older ones
are most likely gone.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Then he should make a trip to Japan.
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-24 16:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:09:56 -0600, "Tedd"
this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is currently (as far as my undergraduate
knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or clovis culture and
asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as evident in the record between alaska and eastern
asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce a clear relationship to link alaska and clovis
of the lower 48. dates retrieved from alaskan sites which are claimed to be pre-clovis are still
disputed due to carbon contamination and lack of cultural layer association, those that are
established are shown to be younger than clovis. in both cases neither group of dated sites contain
assemblages that show any cultural relation to clovis.
C. Vance Haynes 1982
Irrelevantly old.
Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002
There are researchers that say that, but I frankly disagree
with them. There is a current divide in this study some come
for cultural exchange and carry over from asia, some come
against it. I think in the next 5 years the archaeology from
Japan will become so convincing that no-one would reasonably
there was no cultural carry over from asia.
Michael Clark
2003-07-25 03:53:17 UTC
Permalink
[..]
this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is currently (as far as my
undergraduate
knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or
clovis culture and
asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as evident in the record between
alaska and eastern
asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce a clear relationship to link
alaska and clovis
of the lower 48. dates retrieved from alaskan sites which are claimed to be
pre-clovis are still
disputed due to carbon contamination and lack of cultural layer association,
those that are
established are shown to be younger than clovis. in both cases neither group of
dated sites contain
assemblages that show any cultural relation to clovis.
C. Vance Haynes 1982
Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002
tedd.
Has anything been done to compare clovis points with Monte Verde points?
Some references:

Clovis revisited: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from
Blackwater Draw, New Mexico (Philadelphia: The University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania, 1999) Anthony T. Bouldurian, John L. Cotter

The Fenn Cache: Clovis Weapons and Tools (Santa Fe: One Horse
Land and Cattle Company, 1999) George Frisson, Bruce Bradley

Clovis Blade Technology: A Comparative Study of the Kevin Davis
Cache, Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999) Michael B. Collins,
Marvin Kay
Duncan
MIB529
2003-07-25 06:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by deowll
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most artifacts other
than the points are sort of generic. I've never seen something I could call
a Clovis point from Asia. Unless you know something I don't I think the
points developed in North America. I don't question a linkage between North
Easter Asian culture and Native American culture.
this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is currently (as far as my undergraduate
knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or clovis culture and
asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as evident in the record between alaska and eastern
asia
...which therefore explains the lower date for DNA evidence. The BBC
article was written by idiots. If anthropologists weren't so insistant
on the rantings of a 17th-century missionary, perhaps we could get
something done.

I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
John Wilkins
2003-07-25 07:01:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote:
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
--
John Wilkins
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed.
Truman Capote
MIB529
2003-07-25 11:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
Straw man. I'm not surprised. Just because I don't have a theory
doesn't logically mean that I can't debunk a current theory. Let's
face it: The theory claims that Indians have all the intelligence of
mollusks. Are you willing to hold that theory? Are you also willing to
explain why the features we associate with Indianness are the exact
features that would've been selected AGAINST in the Bering Strait
region? Oh, let me guess: A miracle happened. Lots of em.
MIB529
2003-07-25 11:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
So, what you're saying is, since Redi didn't know about evolution, we
should believe in spontaneous generation?
John Wilkins
2003-07-26 03:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
So, what you're saying is, since Redi didn't know about evolution, we
should believe in spontaneous generation?
No, since Redi was in the era where no other explanation but divine
creation was around, I do not expect him to have had any position on
evolution. I am asking *you* for *your* preferred alternative view. You
may not have one - in which case say so. If you object to the consensus
view on scientific grounds, then you are not obliged to have an
alternative view, but if you do, I was intrigued to know what it was.
--
John Wilkins
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed.
Truman Capote
MIB529
2003-07-26 18:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
Post by MIB529
Post by John Wilkins
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
So, what you're saying is, since Redi didn't know about evolution, we
should believe in spontaneous generation?
No, since Redi was in the era where no other explanation but divine
creation was around,
And there's no evidence for the Bering Strait other than that
anthropologists think it's the Word of God. (I'm using that
figuratively, of course.)
Post by John Wilkins
I do not expect him to have had any position on
evolution. I am asking *you* for *your* preferred alternative view. You
may not have one - in which case say so. If you object to the consensus
view on scientific grounds, then you are not obliged to have an
alternative view, but if you do, I was intrigued to know what it was.
Well, if you insist, boats.
Tedd
2003-07-25 16:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
which theory would you like? land route? coastal route? water transport? how
about Stanford and Bradly's theory of migration across a northern atlantic land
bridge? or the southern route up through argentina?

very few archaeologist (with the exception of the old cultural historians, but
they are dying out) actually believe beringia was the _only_ migratory route to
the america's, in fact, few believe it was even the primary route, the time line
just doesnt fit. the problem is... we dont know, we dont have the information.
we all have speculation, conjecture, hypotheses, but very little, if any,
evidence of what route was used at this time. there is more evidence to stand
against the beringia migration than there is against the joe smith renaissance
of the water transport theory from the middle east, thats a pretty far fetched
idea, but it's the reality of it. you dont have to have subscribe to an
alternative theory to know you dont agree with an outdated one.
MIB529
2003-07-23 20:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, and moon dust proves a young earth. You don't date something by
the YOUNGEST date; you date something by the OLDEST date.

Anyway, the idea of telling the age of a mutation eerily mirrors
neo-Lamarckism, in which the organism "remembered" its ancestral forms
and was thus able to go through them more quickly, adding something at
the end. Seems there are still those who would Haeckel biology.

As for the skull shape, here's a second clue for you: Most Indians are
dolichocephalic, and the cephalic index was discredited a century ago.
Quit trying to find differences between ancient remains and Orientals,
as if all brown-skinned people look alike.

Reminds me of Hooten's claim of "pseudo-Australoids",
"pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced Europeans", all
in a single pueblo 700 years ago. His data, when viewed from a
scientific lens, disproves any claim of pre-Indian Caucasians; after
all, if these Caucasians were here 700 years ago, in the middle of the
Mojave no less, then a cline exists - while the entire "pre-Indian
Caucasian" claim rests on the lack of a cline.
Post by Diarmid Logan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm
Date limit set on first Americans
By Paul Rincon
BBC Science
A new genetic study deals a blow to claims that humans reached America
at least 30,000 years ago - around the same time that people were
colonising Europe.
The subject of when humans first arrived in America is hotly contested
by academics.
On one side of the argument are researchers who claim America was
first populated around 13,000 years ago, toward the end of the last
Ice Age. On the other are those who propose a much earlier date for
colonisation of the continent - possibly around 30,000-40,000 years
ago.
The authors of the latest study reject the latter theory, proposing
that humans entered America no earlier than 18,000 years ago.
They looked at mutations on the form of the human Y chromosome known
as haplotype 10.
This is one of only two haplotypes carried by Native American men and
is thought to have reached the continent first. Haplotype 10 is also
found in Asia, confirming that the earliest Americans came from there.
The scientists knew that determining when mutations occurred on
haplotype 10 might reveal a date for the first entry of people into
America.
Native Americans carry a mutation called M3 on haplotype 10 which is
not found in Asia. This suggests it appeared after people settled in
America, making it useless for assigning a date to the first
migrations.
But a mutation known as M242 looked more promising. M242 is found in
Asia and America, suggesting that it appeared before the first
Americans split from their Asian kin.
Knowing the rate at which DNA on the Y chromosome mutates - errors
occur - and the time taken for a single male generation, the
scientists were able to calculate when M242 originated. They arrived
at a maximum date of 18,000 years ago for its appearance.
This means the first Americans were still living in Asia when M242
appeared and could only have begun their migration eastwards after
this date.
"I would say that they entered [America] within the last 15,000
years," said Dr Spencer Wells, a geneticist and author who contributed
to the latest study.
In 1997, a US-Chilean team uncovered apparent evidence of human
occupation in 33,000-year-old sediment layers at Monte Verde in Chile.
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
The debate over the biological origins of the first Americans has
wide-ranging political and racial implications.
In the US, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Nagpra) has resulted in the handover of many scientific collections
to claimants.
Some archaeologists argue that the remains of early Americans are
sufficiently different from their descendents to be exempt from
Nagpra.
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
"[Dolichocephaly] is a general feature of very early skulls," Dr Wells
told BBC News Online.
He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000
years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could
have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day
Native Americans.
But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.
"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."
http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...